Update On The Semi-Naked She-Pope

From Andy Sheehan at KDKA:

Indecent exposure charges have been dropped against a Carnegie Mellon University student after dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down, with a her pubic hair shaved in the shape of a cross.

Katherine O’Connor was in court Monday and rather than contest the charge, she agreed to perform 80 hours of community service.

Charges against the naked astronaut were also dropped:

Robb Godshaw, 22, was also charged with public nudity stemming from the same incident. He too, will receive the same community service deal.

But let's be honest.  Robb of the House Godshaw was never the issue here as his public testicularity was never mentioned as the reason Bishop Zubik got involved in the first place.

From the Trib:

A Carnegie Mellon University student's march across campus, half naked and handing out condoms while dressed in mock papal finery from the waist up, “crossed over the line,” Bishop David Zubik said on Tuesday.

Zubik, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, said he contacted university officials last week when someone sent the diocese photographs of the young woman, whose pubic hair was shaved in the shape of a cross.

See?

As I wrote here, the Bishop has the whole concept of "freedom of speech" completely wrong.  He wrote that:

...this is an opportunity for all of us to be reminded that freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone’s race, the sacredness of anyone’s religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone’s nationality.

And that's what's completely wrong.  In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court wrote:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

And yet in the coverage of the plea deal:

Bishop David Zubik hopes a Carnegie Mellon University student will learn from the controversy about her half-naked portrayal of the pope and avoid letting it ruin her future, a diocese spokesman said on Monday.

“Bishop Zubik said from the beginning our real concern was the lack of respect for the religious beliefs of others,” Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh spokesman Ronald Lengwin said. “He's hoping the community service can also be a learning experience for her.”

But the plea deal was not about the "lack of respect for the religious beliefs of others."  It was about the public nudity.  Lengwin and the Diocese, by connecting the community service to that "lack of respect" are still getting that bedrock principle wrong.

Truth of the matter Dave, is that she cannot be punished for insulting you or your church (not in a free society, at least) and she cannot be forced into a "learning experience" for insulting you or your church (again, not in a free society).  If that's what you want, then you're the one not respecting the freedom and the First Amendment.

As the man said:

You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

Wonder if they'll be discussing this on the Fortnight For Freedom.

The Catholic Sharia of Pittsburgh

As reported yesterday:

Carnegie Mellon University police on Friday filed charges of indecent exposure against two art students accused of public nudity during a campus parade sponsored by the College of Fine Arts.

One of the two would be the she-pope. The other was some guy who dressed as an astronaut and then disrobed (down to his shoes and nothing more) while standing on top of a float.

You'll note that Bishop Zubik had no problem with the non-female, non-papal public nakedness.

That being said, take a look at this piece from Michael McGough of the LA Times:

In the post-9/11 culture wars over Islamic fundamentalism, American conservatives — properly — have condemned attempts in Muslim countries to punish blasphemy or insults to the prophet Muhammad. It will be interesting to see if they are similarly outraged over what has happened to an art student at Carnegie Mellon University who insulted the pope.

Granted there were no death threats, no threats of violence from the Bishop to defend his faith - but as McGough points out:

But it’s hard to believe that the university would have pursued the matter if there hadn’t been a complaint by Bishop David A. Zubik, who said that the display was “offensive to me and the church that I represent.”

Considering the Bishop was silent about the naked astronaut, it was all about the religious insult.

And in a free society, that's just not good enough to warrant punishment.  Sorry, Dave.

McGough quotes Texas v Johnson and I can't think of a better message to send Bishop David Zubik and the church he's looking to defend:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Especially since he thinks that:

...freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone's race, the sacredness of anyone's religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone's nationality.

Wrong again, Dave.

And Now...The Bishop Responds. And Gets It Wrong.

This is a follow-up to this post.

KDKA's Andy Sheehan (who broke this most important story in late April) has an update on CMU President Cohon's email from earlier today.

By the way, he's got a link to the email at CMU.

He also has a reaction from Bishop Zubik:

The Catholic Church of Pittsburgh acknowledges the fact that Carnegie Mellon University has taken the time to treat this unfortunate incident in a serious manner.

Once again, and as I have said over these last few weeks, this is an opportunity for all of us to be reminded that freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone’s race, the sacredness of anyone’s religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone’s nationality.

Dialogue, disagreements and even demonstrations must be conducted in an atmosphere of decency, self-respect, and esteem for the community in which we live and those who live in it. I hope that all of us – including the students involved – can learn and grow from this very important lesson in living.

I am not sure which update the good bishop is reading but when he writes that:

...this is an opportunity for all of us to be reminded that freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone’s race, the sacredness of anyone’s religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone’s nationality.

He's got it exactly wrong.  Note his weaselly addition of "race" and "nationality" into the discussion.  Nowhere was there any mention of either at the derby, so let's ignore them as the deflections that they are and concentrate on the what the Bishop really wants to talk about.

He's got it exactly wrong because that's exactly what "freedom of speech and freedom of expression" can constitute: freedom to dismiss or disrespect "the sacredness" of anyone's belief.  However offensive that expression may be to the believers.

CMU Apologizes - But For The Wrong Thing

Let's start here, with the Tribune-Review:

Lance: To CMU. Its College of Fine Arts allowed a woman to march in its spring carnival parade naked from the waist down. Her pubic hair was shaved in the shape of a cross. Her top attire was described as “a papal parody.” Many, naturally, took offense. We're all for free expression. But by any standard, this was tasteless.[Bolding in original.]

Not much here to fact-check except to point out the conflicting message from the braintrust. They're saying that:

• We're all for free expression, but
• ...this was tasteless and so
• CMU deserves a LANCE for "allowing" the young woman to march thusly dressed and thusly shaved.

See the conflict? If you are, in deed, "all for free expression" then even if the presentation is "tasteless" no lance is deserved.

Which is why the apology from CMU President Jared Cohon fails.  An astute reader sent me a copy of the text.  Here it is:

To the Carnegie Mellon Community:

I am writing to you about the incident that occurred during Spring Carnival, in which a student appeared in a parade partially nude and portraying herself as the Pope. This act was highly offensive and, as we have said, the university has been investigating the matter and following our procedures to determine if disciplinary action is warranted.

I had not intended to communicate with you again until our review process was complete, but in light of comments I have heard from people on and off campus, I have decided that an update is in order. In particular, some people seem to equate limited communication with no action, believing that the university is doing nothing, and somehow hoping that the issue will just go away. This is not the case, and those who know me and my administration should reject such ideas out of hand.

We have procedures for a reason: to protect both the university's interests and those accused of violating our community standards or policies. We will take the time necessary to discharge our responsibility to treat those involved fairly.

While our process is still in motion and I cannot comment on or speculate about the resolution of the matter, I can apologize to those who took particular offense. I regret that this occurred, and I apologize to all who were offended by this, for religious or other reasons, and especially to those who witnessed this behavior.

Jared L. Cohon
President
Carnegie Mellon University

A few things to note - more than half is devoted to communicating the idea that CMU is still in the process of looking at the incident and reassuring the public that "limited communication" does not equal "no action."

It's the apology that seems somehow incomplete.  While acknowledging that he found the naked she-pope with the crucifix pubes to have been offensive (apologizing to anyone else who found her actions offensive), he utterly fails to defend or even acknowledge CMU's own policy on free expression.  Here it is:

Carnegie Mellon University values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression and assembly - in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission. If individuals are to cherish freedom, they must experience it. The very concept of freedom assumes that people usually choose wisely from a range of available ideas and that the range and implications of ideas cannot be fully understood unless we hold vital our rights to know, to express, and to choose. The university must be a place where all ideas may be expressed freely and where no alternative is withheld from consideration. The only limits on these freedoms are those dictated by law and those necessary to protect the rights of other members of the University community and to ensure the normal functioning of the University.

In the following section labeled "Rights" we see what limits the policy describes.  Here's what people are allowed to do:

• Anyone may distribute printed material
• Offer petitions for signature
• Make speeches
• Hold protests or demonstrations outside university buildings.

However, there are some limits:

• All such activities must be peaceful, avoiding acts or credible threats of violence and preserving the normal operation of the university
• No event shall infringe upon the rights or privileges of anyone not in sympathy with it
• No one will be permitted to harm others, damage or deface property, block access to university buildings or disrupt classes

So other than the naked from public nudity part, nothing she did violated CMU's stated policy on free expression.

So what was the apology for?

For offending a church?  For offending members of that church?  For offending the people holding some sincerely held beliefs regarding any other church, its deity or its doctrine?

Sorry, that just not good enough to warrant any (ANY) sort of sanctions against nudis femina cum decalvetur pubes however tasteless her actions might have been.

Democracy is messy.  Free speech is messy.  If you want to "cherish freedom" then you have to accept that sometimes some people are going to say some things that are offensive.  That's one of the costs of a truly free society.

As Vic Walczek is quoted at the Trib:

“One of the things that are troubling about this is the calls for punishment because she offended the leader of a religious group,” Walczak said. “Free speech means nobody is above criticism, from the president to the pope.”

Liberum oratio in saecula 

Amen

Now...About That CMU Parade (UPDATED)

I guess we have to start with Andy Sheehan at KDKA:

Students at Carnegie Mellon say it’s freedom of expression, but the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh calls it inappropriate and disrespectful.

At an annual art school parade, a female student dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down while she passed out condoms.

Even more, witnesses say the woman had shaved her pubic hair in the shape of a cross.

Ok, ok.  Let me jump right in to the first paragraph and say that YES, it's freedom of expression and because it was a public event during the day (more on that in a bit) one could say it's also inappropriate.  But the part about dressing like The Pope and handing out condoms?  Completely disrespectful - though completely deserving.

An astute reader sent in some more info on the event - it was the Anti-Gravity Downhill Derby.  The event's facebook page has a flickr account for last years event - and event they describe with a witty:

last year got a little out of hand... we expect nothing less this time around.

Well, they got their wish - hahahahaha!

Did you know that there's a flickr account for this year's event?

Well now you do - go see quickly.  No idea how long the pics will stay up.

I checked out the pictures and I couldn't find anything closely resembling "a female student dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down while she passed out condoms."  However I did find this:


Not sure if this is a "safe-sex" or an "size (length OR girth) really doesn't matter" message so we'll just move on to the faux-Botticelli found here:


While I appreciate the point of deconstructing a Renaissance image of beauty I have to point out that her hands are all wrong:


But what do I know?

The only image I could find that could come close to what Andy Sheehan wrote about is this one:


While there are no condoms to be seen, the imagery (a woman dressed in papal garments kneels before a man who holds a banana and is dressed as an altar boy) points to something else completely - something completely valid in protesting and or satirizing and or mocking, regardless of what the good Bishop has to say about the matter.

Which brings me to my point.  The CMU students are completely within their rights in mock what they choose to mock.  Freedom of expression, especially on a college campus and especially in art is necessary to the proper functioning of a free society.  Anything short of that limits freedom.

On the other hand to those students doing the mocking: don't be surprised if your otherwise well intentioned mockery is taken as offensive.  This was during the day at a family event, remember.  Not everyone is as hip as you and not everyone will be happy with your decision to ridicule those who deserve to be ridiculed - but doing the ridiculing in front of their children (who might not understand the issue) on a sunny Thursday afternoon.

Other than that, way to go.

UPDATE:  Access to the flickr account has been yanked.

On The Nones - And Bishop Zubik

Yesterday the P-G published this opinion piece by Most Rev. David A. Zubik, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.

In it he addresses some of "the nones" - the 14 percent or so of people, according to this study by the Pew Research Center, who say they have no religious affiliation - though they may believe in a God and pray.

The good Bishop is troubled:

Every generation -- every human being -- at some point has to answer a fundamental series of questions: Who am I? Why am I alive? What does my life mean and how am I supposed to live my life? But barely half of the "nones" report any reflection on these sorts of questions.

That said, the lack of religious identity in a growing number of people is of great concern to me. But I have found that many people, now in their 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s or 30s, who were lost to faith in their late tweens and 20s, have too often made a decision -- without much thought -- that lasts a lifetime. They create a life mired in consumerism.

I have to face up to the fact that some of the "nones" were created in our own churches and temples. They were the children of believers -- possibly marginal believers, but believers nonetheless -- who never caught it, or caught it and dropped it by the wayside as they entered their young adult years. The Pew Research notes that 74 percent of the "nones" were raised with some religious affiliation.

While he never actually gets around to discussing perhaps why the "nones" are growing more unaffiliated by the generation.

Luckily the Pew report gives us an answer (and this would be something the Bishop decided we didn't need to know):

Overwhelmingly, [the "nones"] think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.

Hmm...I'd hazard a guess that perhaps the collective faith in the Bishop's Church might well have been weakened over the years by the dissonance between the rules on sexual morality (pro-life, anti-contraception, anti-equality) it seeks to impose (by way of the political process, doncha know) on everyone and it's own disastrous handling of its own predatory priests:

Prosecutors who have been stymied for years in their attempts to build a criminal conspiracy case against retired Los Angeles Archdiocese Cardinal Roger Mahony and other church leaders said Tuesday they will review newly released priest files for additional evidence.

Thousands of pages from the internal disciplinary files of 14 priests made public Monday show Mahony and other top aides maneuvered behind the scenes to shield molester priests and provide damage control for the church.

How often did things like this happen while the country was being sternly lectured on the civilization-crushing moral evils of condom use or masturbation or Ellen Degeneres?