‘Jihad Jitters’: Come On, ACLU, Go After the Met
by Ben ShapiroWhere’s the ACLU when you need them?
On Sunday, the New York Post reported that the Metropolitan Museum of Art “quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011.” The justification for the removal? “The museum said the controversial images – objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder – were ‘under review.’”
So here’s the bottom line: the Met decided it didn’t want to face the kind of murderous rage the global Muslim community often demonstrates when pictures of Mohammed are posted publicly (see: Danish cartoons).
Aside from the obvious cowardice of the artistic community when it comes to images of Islam, there’s another problem: there’s a strong case to be made that removal of these images in order to “protect” Muslim sensibilities violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause under current Supreme Court precedent.
For example, in a case entitled McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU (2005), the Supreme Court decided that a display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse violated the Establishment Clause. Citing Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), Souter wrote, “The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion’ … Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another … clashes with the ‘understanding, reached … after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens.’”
Seems like a state-funded facility banning a pictures of a particular religious figure in preference for extreme practitioners of a certain religion would fall under the rubric of “favor[ing] one faith over another.” In fact, it favors one strain of Islam over another – there are many Muslims who don’t believe in an absolute ban on images of Islam’s founder.
The Met’s removal of the Mohammed art violates all three parts of the three-part Lemon test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Part one: the government action must have a secular legislative purpose. What exactly is secular about removing particular images on behalf of a particular faith?
Part two: the government action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. This clearly advances one strain of Islam at the expense of all other religions.
Part three: the government action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. This is entanglement of the worst sort – government officials making artistic decisions based on the sensibilities of a very specific subset of religious believers.
Well, how about it, ACLU? You’ve spent so long attacking Christianity and Judaism that you might as well go after Islam, too. Or are you simply too scared to take on the jihadis, who are a hell of a lot more threatening to freedom of religion than religious Christians or Jews?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
70 Comments
Those crickets you hear are the ACLU preparing a statement…
Hear Hear, & Here
And the silence you hear is the sound of the rabid hordes of Christians preparing to burn down the public museums and hang the directors for displaying great works of art such as "Piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary covered in dung. Great story, John.
Kudos for posting Westergaard's Mohammad cartoon
Odd how we started being told how peaceful Islam is right after 9/11. And it's been a continual drumbeat ever since. I, personally, went years and years without ever being lectured about the peacefulness of Muslims. Then 9/11 happened, and whammo! Here it came, and keeps coming! Even odder is that this particular mantra ("Islam is a religion of peace, say it with me, class.") gets chanted at us via the MSM and our own government officials faster and louder after each (whisper–Islamic) terrorist attack.
"Islam means peace" is the anti-reality check of our time
we actually don't have aproblem with respecting Islam's wishes…
They are offended by Mohammed being portrayed in picture. OK, fine. Don't do it.
But don't stick a crucifix in urine and call it art…
The Saudi exported strain of Wahabbi Islam I believe forbids the display of any depiction of the human form. That is why patterms and calligraphy dominates Islamic art although the Turks and Central Asians had a much more relaxed attitude about figurative art. Perhaps the Met needs to remove all the art with human forms on it.
should have figured we'd cover the same territory, Hawk…
dcase: Two great minds, and all that.
yep- an dwe coincided nicely on your other post about representation. Miss having you around…
Here's the real reason for the Met's actions: it's a massive tourist attraction for the city (even the hot dog vendors outside pay thousands for the privilege of selling outside it), and it's a world class museum. The thought of losing all those visitors and their revenue at $20 a pop, not to mention threatening their wealthy neighbors (5th Avenue, upper east side) means they chose their bottom line. And quite frankly, I'm not sure fusty museum curators are the ones I turn to for examples of shining courage to begin with. But I do love the place, and I'd rather not see some Mohammed art than see it close or be blown up.
Thanks a bunch. I've really tried to get back to my roots here at BH and not devote my entire day to the other blog. I get my perspective back here.
The extremists are taking over Islam with their murders and jihads and I don't hear a whole lot of "peaceful" Muslims speaking out against it. If I understand correctly – and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it – it's against the Koran to speak out against another Muslim, so any Muslim who speaks out is an infidel and therefore also subject to a death sentence…which is very convenient for the extremists, isn't it?
Christians have no problem calling out some of their extremists. When Pat Robertson said Haiti was being punished, I saw a lot of "what an idiot" being said. Whenever the Westboro Church people pull one of their stunts, there are plenty who condemn them. In my band, the leader/guitarist and the bassist are seriously heavy-duty Christians…and they think Fred Phelps is evil.
Here is a great quote by Thomas Jefferson in 1785 about the Barbary Pirates. Islam is truly a religion of peace.
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Threw out my membership card on Saturday.
Cue the deafening silence of the MSM.
it is a rejuvenating experience; you never quite know what's coming down the pike…
And if they do speak out against it, it is because their "Sleeper cell" hasn't been "woken" up yet.
It's funny how times haven't changed . . . at least for them.
Double standard just like racism.
Sorta like "Liberals are tolerant," huh?
Makes you almost miss the Inquisition, don't it? /sarc
Or "Global warming is an immediate threat".
its amusing to see you bring up Thomas Jefferson quotes with respect to Islam. Note this one too please:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
"I'd rather not see some Mohammed art than see it close or be blown up."
yeah, no kidding. why deliberately make oneself into a target?!
didn't realize it was the same guy!
What's funny to me is that you seem to be saying: "We're okay with you wanting to protect sacred images. just let us protect ours".
Sounds to me like the Christians and the Muslims are conspiring against us Secular Avante Garde Arty Types.
Jake: And we all know that nobody expects—–The Spanish Inquisition!
So…you'd rather risk being blown up by extremists than ever see the Temple of Dendur again?
It seems rather a strange argument that they should be sued and mocked for taking an action designed to protect the public from what is sadly a real threat. I can't imagine any law on the books that requires you to set yourself up as a target, and expose the public to physical danger. What's the lawsuit going to say? "We demand you put the lives of your patrons at risk!"
That 16th-century Italian palazzo on the first floor is to die for !
The Roman sculpture atrium…the New American Wing…everything. How can you take offense to the museum NOT wanting you to die??
Of course, when I learned about Islam after they blew up a bunch of our Marines but before they first tried to destroy the WTC, Islam meant "submission." Only after they kill 3000 people in the space of a few hours did it come to mean "peace."
Mr. Orwell? Mr. Orwell? There's a call for you on extension 1984.
"we actually don't have a problem with respecting Islam's wishes… "
I do. I understand your sentiment, but beware of getting caught up in this nonsense that there's no such thing as a better culture. By any nearly objective standard you can look at, Western civilization is vastly improved over Eastern civilization. Would you rather live in Iran or Chicago? Even with the mafia thugs (read: politicians) in Chicago, almost everyone would choose it over the theocrisy in Iran.
Those Muslims who do understand that art that offends them isn't grounds for murder have already been Westernized. But if they remain in that Shaira mind-set, there is simply no common ground.
You already *are* a target. This is simply their excuse du jour.
You might want to look up the word "dhimmi."
BEN! You are in so much trouble now. YOU posted a cartoon of Muhammad!
I bet CAIR with be making a complaint to Andrew Breitbart…..
[...] ‘Jihad Jitters’: Come On, ACLU, Go After the Met This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Artists and the gallertes and institutions that supposedly support them are not supposed to be panty waists.
these same artistic institutions dont mind offending Christians by supporting and hanging exhibitions of an ncredibly obscene nature centered around the image of/related to Christ. How come the double standard?
They will pull the pictures.
The ACLU won't protest.
The government will not change it's mind. Likely won't comment at all.
Islam wins. More freedom gone. One step closer to being slaves of Allah, with the help of our own government.
I dunno, man. I don't wanna get blown up at the Met. Or anywhere else. But I also really really want to piss off terrorists. It's a fine line.
So it is art for a Crucifix to be put in urine and the howl to high heavens we they are criticized for it. But they are so sensitive to the terrorists sensibilities. God I hate hypocrites.
we are LOST, LOST if we allow this kind of thing to keep happening. this is AMERICA! or it used to be anyway. if we don't wake up and stand up for our rights, we're all gonna be paying the jizyah soon…
I take offense to subjugating ourselves and our rights to fanatics and fundamentalists.
That goes back to classic islam of the 13th century. Wahabbi'ism has nothing to do with it
[...] Read the Full Article @Big Hollywood [...]
What's really complicated is that they could ALSO be guilty of violating those 3 points of Lemon v. Kurtzman if they DIDN'T pull the controversial paintings.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I freely admit I wouldn't willingly make myself stand out as a target for crazy extremists. And no, I don't think a museum, whose very existence is to bring art to the masses, should be denigrated because it chose the safer course, if not the bravest, to keep as many people flowing through the doors.
How come the double standard? They are betting that Christians won't violently retaliate against them. So they feel safe to mock and insult away. And guess what? They are right.
Why'd you have to bring me into this?
Submission! That is the only answer. If the Muslims don't like something we do in this Country, why just stop doing it, or they may hurt us some more.
Bye, bye independence – Hello submission.
Very, very true, and yet…I just don't see where it's a museum's requirement to put itself and visitors at risk.
Scary shit, just ask Mark Steyn!
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure if the Met is subject to the same laws the courthouse is.
I believe the building that houses the Met is owned and maintained by the city of New York but the employees and collections are managed by a non-profit private organization funded by donors, benefactors, and patrons. Therefore laws that state that legislation has to be secular do not apply as this is not government legislation. The people making the decision to remove the pictures of Muhammad are not government employees, unlike the courthouse with the 10 commandments.
That being said, the author is wrong and it is better that the ACLU stays out of the Met's business. EVEN IF they are subject to the secular legislation stated above (I'm not sure, I am not a judge or a lawyer, as stated), who is to say that someone might complain and say that ALL Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and even ancient Greek and Roman religious masterpieces should be removed from the museum, just like the 10 commandments was removed from the courthouse. I think EVERYONE should agree that the collection should stay privately maintained and supervised, without government intervention. Artistic expression is as hindered by government as it is hindered by religion (especially, as you can see, in this case).
I honestly think it is a shame that the Met feels the need to do this. It does seem like this makes potential terrorists powerful and the artist and art less so. Any religion or belief that would case pain, suffering, or destruction is appalling, no matter the reason. I do think that the Met has made the right decision in this matter but I think it is extremely unfortunate the reasoning.
Could you please explain exactly why you have a problem respecting Islam's wishes. I'm confused as to your actual point here.
Wonderful point. Thank you!
Because Islam is an oppressive, evil system that is inconsistent with the ideals of civilization. I refuse to force women to wear burkas to keep some fanatic from detonating, and I refuse to give up freedoms by the threat of violence. Sharia law is the most unjust form of law currently practiced in the entire world. So if they get offended by art, that's their problem.
I'm a Christian; I don't kill people who put crucifixes in jars of urine. I tell them they're stupid and insensitive, but I don't ask anyone to remove it. Christians don't behead people who are offensive to them; Jews don't stone people who paint swastikas on a synogogue. When Islam reaches the level where it can deal with offensive material without killing innocent people, THEN maybe I'll give a damn about not offending them.
Until then, we all need to grow a spine and REJECT their illogical, inhumane standards. It's pretty much a moral obligation not to kowtow to evil.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art has never exactly been a bastion of radical art.
I understand the events that may have led to you thinking this way, but I think it would behoove you to do a little research and open your mind and heart a little before you continue to speak of one of the world largest and greatest religions in this manner. I am not here to argue (and I'm Jewish not Muslim anyway!) but should you wish to educate yourself a little here are some webpages you may enjoy or find interesting.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,...
http://www.alislam.org/islam/islam-peaceful-relig...
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm (I do not post this website to anger or upset you, but simply to show you how your religion may appear to outsiders. By the way there are many webpages similar to this about Judaism.)
no argument there…
The forbidden portrayal of Mohammed is a Wahhabist notion, not mainstream. Still, it isn't that big of a deal to respect. Our point is that needs to be uniform to cover ALL religions…
well, you were coming in anyway!
not really…
Actually we don't have problem with ANY ridicule, quite frankly. Respect is nice,it's civilized, but it isn't- and shouldn't be- demanded. Secular artsy types make the world FAR more interesting…
Um, I've done plenty of research into Islam. It's why I reject it. I'm also fully aware of the "arguments" against Christianity too, and I have in fact refuted nearly all of them at one time or another (and if you're at all familiar with them, you know that there aren't that many of them–they boil down to just a handful of arguments).
But what you need to understand is that America was built on certain principles that are in direct violation of Islamic tenets. Likewise, you see that much of America today is in violation of Christian tenets too. The difference between how Christians act and how Muslims act is OBVIOUS to everyone, and to pretend there's some kind of equivalency here is the height of willful blindness.
Except that there are mutually exclusive beliefs held by various religions (and I include atheism in there too). It is impossible to uniformly cover all religions. At some point, you are going to offend someone. I say you have to use your reason and common sense here. Is it worth placating a murderous bunch of people who seek to take away your rights by voluntarily giving up those rights, knowing that that will simply embolden them to take more of your rights? Or do you you say, "You're wrong to try to force that view on us"?
Non-Christians have no problem doing the second option when it comes to Christianity, so why not treat Islam the same way? The only reason I can think of is that they know Christians won't kill them whereas there's a good chance some Muslim will. Which means that terrorism works, because it is the fear that sets this policy, rather than a logical, rational approach.
The ACLU is an anti-Christian organization. So it is a natural ally of Islam, and pornographers and everything deviant, decadent, and corrupt. Anything that spits in the eye and pulls the beard of Jesus is what they promote. Someday Christians will have their fill of them.
It's a shame you have already made your mind up – it's that kind of attitude that is making it so hard for us to reconcile with Islamic nations. But, as I said, I'm not here to argue.
As if you haven't made up your mind.
no doubt that the intolerance of Wahabbist fanatics is the key issue here. What we were advocating is a modicum of respect for people's beliefs.
The respect for Islam's is based on fear of reprisals. That does not serve them well…
Two things any lawyer should know:
Most of the Amendments to the constitution apply only to government action. Among the exceptions are the ban on individuals from owning slaves, and Prohibition (repealed). Sooth is on the right track: The Met is a private entity, and is not subject to the First Amendment. Other laws, yes, but not the Establishment Clause. So quoting Establishment Clause cases is the C- answer on your Constitutional Law exam.
Futhermore, the leading cases deal with the display of materials, not the removal from display. It's not clear that the same analysis would apply, especially since plenty of Islamic materials remain on display. Failure to spot this issue on your Constitutional Law exam gets you a C.
A lot of undergrad Con Law classes cover this. If you are thinking about going to law school, you should probably take a course like that to see if you are suited to the legal profession. Not everyone is cut out to be a lawyer.
Seconded.
Go back to law school ben.
First of all, it was not Muslims who created the supposed work of art entitled "piss christ". Also when do you ever hear about Muslims mocking Yashua? The answer is never because Yashua is an important part of Islam and the Koran overtly states that you cannot be a Muslim unless you respect the People of The Book (Christians and Jews).
Of course you get extremists in Islam but that is the part the media only focuses on. They never show normal, every-day Egyptians, or Syrians or Albanians etc. They show Wahabi obscurantists preaching their venom or extremists behaving barbarically. Like The Prophet said, there is no compulsion in Islam and anybody who says differently is a Kaffir (one who hides the truth).
From Heliopolis, Salaam.
You must be logged in to post a comment.