Censorship or Righteousness?
There has been much discussion recently about "Art" in BYU-Idaho's newspaper. Some works of art depict controversial topics, activities that go against taught morals, and content that is otherwise questionable. Each article set out to examine whether these things are permissible because they are art and expression, or if they should be shunned, avoided, or censored. (As a point of interest: each article ended on almost identical, disappointing neutral ground: "decide for yourself.")
I know where I stand on what I think is beauty and what isn't, and there is certainly some "art" and "entertainment" in the world to which I am morally opposed. There are others who would disagree with me. I know some would take a more conservative side than I. Others would say I am too stringent on moral grounds. With all this disagreement on beauty and art, what can be done to oppose what I consider degrading, amoral material from being distributed as art? Or should it be opposed at all, seeing that I expect others to respect what I consider art? Can I oppose it and expect what I consider art to remain free from censorship? Can I do nothing and keep a clean conscience and good standing before God? Can art be beautiful AND depict something you are morally opposed to?
What do you think?
I know where I stand on what I think is beauty and what isn't, and there is certainly some "art" and "entertainment" in the world to which I am morally opposed. There are others who would disagree with me. I know some would take a more conservative side than I. Others would say I am too stringent on moral grounds. With all this disagreement on beauty and art, what can be done to oppose what I consider degrading, amoral material from being distributed as art? Or should it be opposed at all, seeing that I expect others to respect what I consider art? Can I oppose it and expect what I consider art to remain free from censorship? Can I do nothing and keep a clean conscience and good standing before God? Can art be beautiful AND depict something you are morally opposed to?
What do you think?
Labels: thoughts
posted by Nate Mecham at 2:25 PM
16 Comments:
We have lost the measuring device that helps us to differentiate between that which is repulsive or dangerous to the human spirit and that which is uplifting or healing or positive. We place equal value on Howard Stern and Howard W. Hunter--sort of. In reality, as a society, we probably place more value on Howard Stern. I don't believe when our founding fathers created the first amendment and guaranteed us freedom of speech that they intended to protect Howard Stern. The unfortunate thing is that the same forces which would squash Howard Stern would also be used to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative voices which we so badly need to add balance to the overwhelmingly liberal media. I'm not sure there is a solution. It seems that we must tolerate one in order to have the other.
The problem is that our society has lost its moral compass. The battle as I see it is between those who believe that some moral truths are eternal and absolute vs. those who believe that moral truth is relative--it depends on the situation. Moral relativists will tell you that Howard Stern is doing nothing wrong because some people enjoy his show. If they like that type of entertainment, they should be able to watch or listen to it--after all we are adults and can make our own choices. Moral absolutists will tell you that what Howard Stern does is damaging to the human spirit, is degrading and debasing and does nothing to provide anything positive to our society. I can think of no situation or circumstance which would provide any positive results from pornography. So, is it my responsibility to do what I can to see that Howard Stern cannot broadcast his filth? I don't think so. I do however believe that it is my responsibility (along with other like-minded people) to do what I can to raise the level of awareness in our society of the damage which is done by the proliferation of such garbage. If we can restore the moral compass to its original working order, then the Howard Sterns of the world will no longer have audiences. In the end I think that approach will be much more effective.
Now, as far as art and entertainment being offensive, perhaps I have used an extreme example in the foregoing explanation. If we use something a bit more acceptable, like a painting of the crucifixion as an example then maybe the discussion will make more sense. We have a rampant disease in our country. For some unknown reason people seem to feel that the US Constitution guarantees them the right to not be offended. There are no such promises. If my reasonable expression of religious faith offends you, the problem is yours, not mine.
Ditto to Craig!
I have been accused of ‘censorship’ a few times this past year as I tried to remove a school-sponsored pornographic book from our sophomore English classes. A corrupt process prevented other parents from participating with me in this effort, until the entire District administration and School Board voted to retain the book.
One English teacher/attorney/debate coach played the part of Korihor magnificently! He knew the power of speech, and was less than truthful in every way. He claimed to be unaware of the 88 sexual references in the 200-page book he has taught for three years; and assured others that because the phrases were spread throughout the book, that the students didn’t notice them either. He skillfully convinced others of the importance of this book in the lives of students to teach them about consequences. He further stated that removing the book would violate First Amendment rights of those students desiring to read the book.
Offensive literature is not “free speech” when it selfishly crashes someone else’s values without their consent—even if it’s only one child. We have laws which protect the innocence of children. Minors do not enjoy the same protection under the First Amendment that adults do. I also believe that what isn’t good for children, usually isn’t good for adults either. At what age does your mind grow a smut filter—age 16, 18 or 21? At what age does your mind filter out obscene material to the point that it doesn’t have any effect on you?
The School Board accused me of taking offensive phrases out of context, stating that when looking at the book in its entirety, it has very valuable literary merit; and that “banning” books would set a bad precedent. One member wanted to respect those parents who wanted their children to have this instruction.
I do not feel defeated in my effort. My focus turned from the book many months ago when I realized no one was listening; and it turned instead to those individuals and groups who are guiding the education of our children. I pursued this effort for more than a year to reveal the moral integrity of both our School District and Board—and now I have my answer. The real problem is not one obscene book—but that we have educational leaders who do not see an
obscene book as a problem! There are much worse things that can happen to a child than not getting a full education. As someone said, “It is infinitely better to take chances with an ignorant but pure-minded teacher, than with the greatest philosopher who is impure.”
The trouble with much of the art and entertainment today is that it is almost wholly disassociated from religious life—and to separate them usually increases the danger of adversely affecting our spirituality. Rather than look up to God for direction, the proud look sideways for the approval of man and to justify allowing personal desires, appetites and passions to go unbridled.
Those who tolerate almost everything in corrupt literature, music, television, art and films, claim their right to personal taste and culture, and will not tolerate speech like standards and decency which challenge filth. Many assume even hard-core pornography is legal because it is so prevalent-but that is not true. If the existing obscenity laws were strictly enforced, we could eliminate most of all obscene materials from our communities. This filth which is only produced to gain wealth and power, is rapidly destroying lives and families, because our habits and character are influenced by those things which enter our minds. Many times I have turned from a movie or picture because of its trashy vocabulary or inappropriate depictions. This is what I call quiet courage, for no one, not even myself, could ever know the effects that these presentations could have on me.
I may be lacking in formal education, but I refuse to remain silent any longer in the presence of the overwhelming filth in our schools and community. It is no longer enough to speak for right principles—we must fight for them to protect your families. Parents have the right and the responsibility to not only find out, but to also influence what our children are being taught. Parents must never give unquestioned authority to those in positions of educational guidance over children.
As I sat in the temple last week, I remembered why so many are unable to discern right and wrong. Those who have the power to discern have a responsibility to defend truth, and to bless the lives of others.
I am so appreciative that two wise and expereinced people that I trust very much have taken the time to share their thoughts here, I have learned much, thank you.
I especially liked this sentence, Mom:
"Rather than look up to God for direction, the proud look sideways for the approval of man and to justify allowing personal desires, appetites and passions to go unbridled."
As some of you may know, I got to participate in my mother's effort to remove that book from schools. I was kind of a behind-the-scenes speech-writer for her, and I learned a lot.
When Gandalf passed the Ring of Power on to Frodo and recounted its history to him, Frodo felt the weight of his responsibility and lamented, "I wish The Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had ever happened."
Gandalf replied, "So do all who live to face such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
I find it easy to become complacent, to coast through life. I appreciate experiences that awaken me to what is going on.
And one of those things going on is a war between good and evil. If we take that "war in heaven" story seriously at all, we cannot stand idly by and watch evil happen. Of course, one side of me objects that all we can really do in life is keep ourselves and our family pure and strong.
But it also seems that well-intentioned zeal (even if found to have been misdirected) will be more forgivable than willful tolerance of evil.
There are episodes in my life when I wish I had just kept my mouth shut, even though I thought I was right at the time. But would I rather have done nothing?
What book was it?
I really like this topic and have been excited to respond. This is not my response but rather a post I was thinking about putting elsewhere until I thought of how potently it applies to this topic.
Usually I feel that song writers, who swear a lot in their lyrics, lack creativity. I don't feel this way about Ani DiFranco. She is very creative. Her attitude, which does not necessarily reflect that of the Emily Broadcasting Station, is this:
"i speak without reservation from what i know and who i am. i do so with the understanding that all people should have the right to offer their voice to the chorus whether the result is harmony or dissonance, the worldsong is a colorless dirge without the differences that distinguish us, and it is that difference which should be celebrated not condemned. should any part of my music offend you, please do not close your ears to it. just take what you can use and go on."
Music is a powerful force not easily left behind. A friend of mine introduced her song "Untouchable Face" to me at the age of 16 as we dozed off to sleep. I doubt I heard it again for a good six years. But it has been in my head for seven years now and it still comes to mind when I'm the one lacking in creativity.
I have "censored" it.
think i'm going for a walk now
i feel a little unsteady
i don't want nobody to follow me
'cept maybe you
i could make you happy you know
if you weren't already
i could do a lot of things
and i do
tell you the truth i prefer
the worst of you
too bad you had to have a better half
she's not really my type
but i think you two are forever
and i hate to say it but
you're perfect together
two-thirty in the morning
and my gas tank will be empty soon
neon sign on the horizon
rubbing elbows with the moon
a safe haven of sleepless
where the deep fryer's always on
radio is counting down
the top 20 country songs
and out on the porch the fly strip is
waving like a flag in the wind
y'know, i don't look forward
to seeing you again soon
you'll look like a photograph of yourself
taken from far far away
and i won't know what to do
and i won't know what to say
i see you and i'm so perplexed
what was i thinking
what will i think of next
where can i hide
in the back room there's a lamp
that hangs over the pool table
and when the fan is on it swings
gently side to side
there's a changing constellation
of balls as we are playing
i see orion and say nothing
The book is The Natural, by Bernard Malamud.
I am one that would be opposed to censorship, after all it is the huge differences in perspective that make this world a great place. Many great and beautiful things have been made with this liberty we have. And I really dont believe it is a lack of the moral compass that has skewed todays view. It is more of who has the microphone and who is doing most of the talking. I believe that most people are good and decent and can tell the difference between right and wrong. The problem lies with complacency and the none of my business attitude of most people. The majority has taken a back seat to a small minority of powerful people. It is these people who want the 10 Commandments removed from public places yet will defend the free speech of NAMBLA. I am pretty sure that most people dont have a problem seeing the 10 Commandments yet I would bet that most everyone would agree that NAMBLA is evil. These few people for some reason have decided they know what is best for America without asking us Americans. And we have yet to rally together and stop what we all deep inside know to be wrong.
Yes I am opposed to censorship I think that most people should be capable of deciding what is art and what is not. What I find odd is that California cant have a christian symbol on its flag because a few people might not like it yet the Supreme Court has trouble deciding if altering kids faces on kiddy porn makes it ok. It is the double standards that are in place that bother me. People will always have their agency to chose right or wrong. It is the " I am sorry that my beliefs arent the same as yours, let me change what I believe so as not to upset you but by all means give us all your smut and filth since you have the right to free expression" attitude that makes me sick.
The reality is that the rift between right and wrong will always be here, evil is eternal also. And since most of us dont have the money or the time to start crusades against the liberal media all we really can do is not watch it read it or listen to it. We can take a firm hold of what we believe and support the good examples of our free speech. Our stand will be known and many will find the courage to do the same from our examples
Welcome Ryan! ... and everyone for that matter. Nate, this has been such a great post. I like the subject; the parents; the stories; it's great! Anyhow, here's some food for thought:
The most highly censored parts of history are also some of the most repulsive and violent. Nazi Germany censored most anything that depicted more or less than a happy German family.
I think censorship has its place, but it's not in government. And it begins with personal decision. I, like Ryan, think that the silent majority of people have moral compasses that are alive and well.
more food:
Consider God's stance on censorship: I don't know the answer exactly, but I think it's worth considering. He sends us, His children, into this world as we see it. Whatever we see, God, for whatever reason, has chosen NOT to censor. He gives us an inner compass in a dangerous environment. You know Saddam Hussein has children, whom he raised!? However, there ARE places which are highly censored; the temple.
I think if I were raising children, my tendency would be to censor almost everything within those walls.
I could be totally wrong, but what does everyone else think?
Hi Nate,
Art is not beauty. Art is an expression of what is inside the artist and that is not always pretty. A censored world would have us believe all is beautiful daffodils but this is not the way this world is. Many people are hurting and need to speak about it.
I don't want to be afraid to hear what others are saying. Jesus spent time with prostitutes. He heard them.
Jesus spent time with prostitutes and heard them so that they would change. That's why he spends time with any of us -- not just for the hell of it (pun), but so we can and will become something else that is better than we are. (for the heaven of it)
Here's a classic problem with perfection: can it be plural? If a being is to become perfect, in what way will it remain distinct from other beings that have become perfect, and in what way will it have to loose its individuality?
Another classic problem: If art is an expression of what's inside the artist (nevermind the inside/outside problem), then what isn't art?
Hi to all,
An interesting response Jared.
I am referring to art in a conventional sense but of course,art is any creative activity.
Yes, Jesus wanted the prostitutes and other sinners to change but He also dealt with them as they were. If He didn't know who they were, He would not have been able to reach them. (Samaritan woman in Jn 4:29)Art as it is helps us to understand the artist, his society and perhaps ourselves.
In regards to the individual versus the collective, remember the concept that each member is unique and has its' own talents. 1Cor 12:17.
I am not going to try to argue the definition of art, because by the 12th post my opinion reached the surface. But I am going to say this. Art truly is pretty much anything man made. But, because of that, I chose not to expose myself to most of it. I think it is important to note that even in a society where freedom of speech is defended, there are still laws against pornography and obsenity (I am with Jared's Mom on that one).
I wasn't going to post anything because what I wanted to say has pretty much already been expressed, but I just wanted to share an experience I had last week. We rented a movie that had recieved many awards and was highly recommended by friends. I felt I was prompted not to rent it, but when I got to the video store, I kind of brushed it off and figured we could turn it off if, for some reason, it wasn't good. We didn't even get halfway through. It was so dark and dimented, that I just started to cry and I couldn't stop for about an hour even after we turned it off. I was almost mesmerized. It wasn't that I felt violated or that someone living this kind of life surprised me at all, I just felt the spirit leave the room and absolute sorrow come in it's place. And I felt the loss of hope---I saw the choices the people in this movie were making, and I lost the hope for their redemption. I have close friends that have made some choices in their life that have disconnected them, and it made me lose hope for them too. This is not of God. I believe we are to do our best to understand others. But, I do not think we need to expose ourselve to the elements of evil to do it. Christ is love. Don't you think if we pray, He would help us to empathize with His children?
We couldn't figure out where all the praise and awards came from for this movie, but then Ryan pointed out to me that the acting WAS incredible... And it made us a little sick to think that it matters not what the content is, only the ability to portray it.
One more thing. I was always very opposed to the unedited showing of war time movies on television for Memorial Day. I come from a family of military background as many of you have. This is also something that has been created for the rest of us to understand. But what has never made sense to me is that many have been forever tramatized by horrific things that happened. I knew the only american civilian that was in the american embassy in Kenya (I believe it was kenya, it was in Africa) that Bin Laden destroyed, and he would never wish upon anyone to truly see what he did. So why would we expose ourselves to something that so many have spent a lifetime trying to forget? There are others ways of empathy. Protect the spirit in your lives and think about the kids you have or once may have.
I agree Maria that there are movies etc out there that I do not want to view either but I do not think that qualifies me to censor others.
Also,I don't think that you will ever forget the emotional impact that the movie had on you, even if you did not like it. Art affects us emotionally.
I agree that I do not have the right to censor others, but there should be and are limitations to those things. For instance, there are galeries of art that are incredible but also rather obsene that you must be an adult to enter. Our society still agrees that we must censor children, but we do not take away the agency of adults to partake. I would never dream of trying to stifle someone else's expression, how ever much in opposition to my beliefs the art may be. I know that those things are harmful. While I may never forget the impact that had on me, I do not believe it was a negative experience that I can take and grow from in the sense you mean. (In that I didn't feel at all justified in watching the little I did for art's sake considering that was my whole reason for watching in the first place). I have always thought the balance of freedom was always a fine line. When does regulation take away agency and when does it protect it? Regulate it enough that you have to make a conscious choice to view. But then, what will be regulated and what will not? It is important to remember that there are absolute goods and evils in this world, and there are situational goods and evils.
Post a Comment
<< Home