On public radio this morning, I heard an interview and call-in show about Jacksonville's City Council President Yarborough suggesting that the photo of a nude pregnant woman in the city's leading museum MOCA have some sort of draping over the breasts in order to avoid offending parents that do not wish to have their children exposed to such imagery while otherwise teaching them about art in a museum.
Personally, I disagree with the Council President. I have a lot of conservative, religious preferences, but they are PERSONAL. Regardless of anyone's idea of decency, my religion (as I can only interpret it) teaches me that my values and morals are best upheld by CHOICE, rendering unto "Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." I think most if not all censorship is ultimately counterproductive, particularly when it comes to the human body and sexuality. After all, we want most what we can't have, so if you make something like the female breast extremely taboo under any and all circumstances, sexual or otherwise, odds are that children and adolescents, especially, are going to be that much more focused and interested in seeing what they are told they cannot - and, most likely, sexually objectifying it in the process. Other nations (such as Japan, if I'm not mistaken) are not nearly as strict in these regards yet, as a society, seem to have fewer sex crimes and so forth. Unless I'm mistaken, the museum is a public place, so to me, that means it should at least be ALLOWED to represent as much of society as it wants in order to be relevant to as many as possible. Therefore, if you're offended, simply don't look or don't go. There are, for better or worse, other ways to teach children about art.
Then, there's the other side of this coin - the side in which one caller linked Yarborough to the city's conservative and therefore religious nature and compared his views and alleged intentions to those of ISIS', which is imposing strict Islamic law everywhere it goes. While I see where he's coming from, I wonder if his seemingly tolerant attitude would lead him to protest the suing of a school, a business or anyone else that would be and has been sued in the recent past over public displays of religious symbols within Christmas and/or other holiday displays. Those that sue generally cite separation of church and state, but while I cannot claim to be an expert or have a perfect solution, I think the intention of that clause in our law is way too conveniently and narrowly interpreted by BOTH sides on a regular basis. Personally, I believe it means that religious institutions no longer have the ability to help make or enforce actual laws the way the Catholic Church and the Church of England might have in centuries' past. The ability to lobby and to influence legislators and their legislation, though, is a right given to ALL Americans. It should not be taken away from religious people and institutions or from anyone else precisely BECAUSE the nation is so big and so diverse. After all, individual elections are never going to represent the interests of everyone, no matter how they are funded or how fairly they are conducted. Lobbying, as it were - even if you resent the ease with which the rich and big business seem to do it over those of the so-called "ordinary" citizens - allows segments of the population to be heard even if they are not specifically represented by the results of individual elections. If nothing else, at the end of it all, you're left with the plain and simple fact of life not always seeming fair and not everyone can get exactly what they want or be pleased ALL of the times. Therefore, the most fair thing to do in my opinion is simply to take turns.
In conclusion, while I disagree with Mr. Yarbrough's stance that said photo should somehow be censored, my beef with so-called "progressives" is that, most of the time, their method of promoting tolerance and diversity is actually to suppress or remove that which is perceived by them to cause the most conflict - i.e., inherently religious and/or nationalist iconography and ideas. They often claim to be non-conformist, yet they value solidarity on the issues that mean the most to them and seek to ostracize and diminish anyone that disagrees as somehow being ignorant, regressive, not representative of the "majority" and therefore in need of being rooted out either immediately or systematically. To me, that's neither tolerance nor diversity because you can't tolerate something to which you do not expose yourself and you cannot be "diverse" if you root out of society all elements which you think are divisive, outdated or just plain wrong. What I believe the progressive side is really trying to avoid is not intolerance or mass conformity, but conflict. It's an understandable goal, to be sure, but whether it is over a nude photo or even a cop's actions in Ferguson, Missouri, human nature requires that we MUST allow for conflict in order to fairly work through social issues as well as to allow diversity and therefore BE tolerant. It isn't always pretty or fun, but I do believe it to be a fact. The alternative, which I would endorse, would simply be to promote self-restraint and say, "The fact that someone disagrees with you and does not like you should not necessarily be an excuse for violence or excessive civil unrest."
Like the pans people used to keep under their beds to be emptied later, before modern plumbing - out of sight and out of mind - it is what it is and exists whether you see it or not. Or, in other words (which I hope you'll pardon), "Shit happens." 'Think you're tolerant and pro-diversity? Then get over it. ;)
