U-T:
In a meeting Thursday, officials from state parks informed Encinitas its request would be rejected largely on constitutional grounds.For the record, here is the "no-preference" clause of the state Constitution:
Clay Phillips, the superintendent for San Diego state parks, said the agency received an opinion from the state Attorney General’s office last week that “clearly stated” that placing the Surfing Madonna on public land would violate the no-preference clause in the California Constitution. Essentially, the clause says displaying the piece at Moonlight Beach would give the appearance of government favoring one religion over another.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.It's an outrageous leap to argue that a reference to a cultural icon in an artwork by an apparently secular artist, overwhelmingly beloved by a largely secular community, is somehow an illegal state "preference" for a religion to which neither the artist nor the vast majority of the art's supporters belong.
Time to burn down the historic Spanish missions, I guess. And there are an awful lot of books that will need to be banned from the library.
UPDATE: Kamala rubs salt into the wounds by blaming Mark Patterson's blog comments. Apparently, if you defend your art in a Catholic online forum, that makes the art a state establishment of religion. I'm going to go discuss Kamala in a Catholic forum and see if we can get her thrown off state property.
I respectfully disagree with you (but please don't associate me w/ Stocks for doing so).
ReplyDeleteMy opinion:
1. The artist's intent is irrelevant
2. The "secular nature" (inaccurate description) of the current community is irrelevant
3. It's impossible to objectively say the artwork is non-religious, especially when it includes a very popular religious icon
Why can't you display it on private property?
Guess the council knew all along. The preference for a religion could be asked of the city parks and rec for the the renting out the closed community center to a church.
ReplyDeleteI also respectfully disagree with you. The piece clearly has a religious motif - it isn't a surfing farmer or surfing ninja. Even if the intent of the artist was secular, the piece still has the vibe of religion. By displaying the piece on public property, the state would be opening the floodgate for lawsuits. I think it was a very mature decision to turn down the piece - it is forward looking, and they know that it will end up displayed on a private property where the public will be able to access it. Every business in Encinitas wants the piece, so I am sure it won't go into hiding.
ReplyDeleteThere are way too many bunched up panties on this issue. The piece was hardly promoting religion. If you want to take issue with crosses perched on mountain tops, I'm with you, but this is a little bit extreme.
ReplyDeleteJudging from the rest of the comments before & after Mark's, many Catholics are very offended by the Surfing Madonna (and also very weird).
ReplyDeleteRyan, which is a better example of panties in a bunch: my 1st comment (3/15 10:13) or "UPDATE: Kamala rubs salt into the wounds ... I'm going to go discuss Kamala in a Catholic forum and see if we can get her thrown off state property."
Anon,
ReplyDeleteFirst you say the mosaic is an un-Constitutional endorsement of Catholicism, then you say Catholics are offended by the mosaic.
Which is it?
This seems to me to be a case of political correctness extremism, where we censor all religious images, no matter the context.
How is this any different than banning books in the library? I can think of an awful lot of books that mention religions that are currently on the shelves of the Encinitas library.
Follow the money!!! Mr.Patterson is.
ReplyDeleteIf the surfing madonna is illegal then the placement of a banner created by an artist is illegal. Therefore, the surfing madonna banner along the 101 at the travel trust building is illegal also.
ReplyDeleteDOWN IT COMES....NOW!!!!
The placement of the banner on city property is a city endorsement of one religion over another, it's got to go.
City of Encinitas...remove that banner!!!
The city parks and rec department rents out the community center on Sundays to a church. Is that an endorsement of one religion over another?
ReplyDeleteNot if they pay...follow the money.
DeleteNo, it's very different, and it has nothing to do with money.
DeleteLetting a religious group rent a city-owned space isn't any different than letting them buy land & pay property tax. There is no endorsement involved.
Uhhh, that's just what I said, only in a lot fewer words.
DeleteW.C., those are both compelling arguments against displaying the Surfing Madonna on public property. (Am I only allowed to list a single reason?)
ReplyDeleteNo one is censoring you from displaying the artwork on private property.
There's no need to ban religious books -- just put them in fiction where they belong.
Religion, specifically Christianity, is a significant component of our cultural, social, legal, and political history. Whether one is a persona of faith or an atheist, it is impossible to remove religion from a public square which is so heavily influenced, molded, by said religion. I cannot understand the secularists who are so strongly committed to removing any symbol of faith from the public square. It is simply part of who we are, believer or non believer. For the atheists out there, please just enjoy the art with its religious connotations as part of our unique and enjoyable heritage.
ReplyDelete