Interesting discussion. I just want to comment about the visual rhetoric in two of the instances -- the Minnesota guy who wanted to poke a rusty nail in the eucharist (or whatever the heck he was talking about) and Obama speaking in what appears to be a cathedral at Georgetown, complete with stained glass windows.

The first instance reminds me of activities that have been marketed as artistic expression, and I bet he could defend himself on those grounds. Remember "Piss Christ" and the cow dung Madonna, and the like?

In the Obama speech example, thought is being given to how this will appear on TV for all the reasons Ellemm has outlined. US Presidents have become expert in knowing the meanings of symbols to potential audiences.

Frankly, I have to say I don't understand why public speeches are allowed by religious institutions in their sanctuaries. In my opinion, a sanctuary by definition is a sacred place. However churches everywhere have been using sanctuaries for decades for political speeches, concerts, community meetings and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with worship. The atmosphere in just about every single sanctuary I've stepped into in the past 30 years has been treated as no more sacred than a movie theater. That to me is a bigger issue than the fact that Obama's people wanted to cover up the symbols. Isn't a sanctuary itself symbolic of one's relationship with God? Why is it considered less significant than the symbols within it?

What I stated was to prove a point that the reliance on the right of free speech as an absolute right can be refuted. A case in point would be that of the Westboro Baptists, where free speech does not mitigate criticism and ridicule any more than any speech which would be contrary to any law for defammation etc. And, as I have mentioned earlier, this may be one of those positions where we will have to agree to disagree. BTW, I've only just come to figure out which particular group you were referring to, Ellemm. The BBC actually had a documentary on them a few years ago and like Louis Farrakhan et al, one or two of them were similarly banned from entering the UK.

The UK has strict laws on hate speech which makes any person who uses threatening words or behaviour guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up hatred against any particular group in society. Criticism and ridicule, if it comes across as derogatory language referring to a person’s religion, sex, race and disability etc would likewise be found acting contrary to the various legislation which protects individuals here and allows recourse to the civil, and criminal courts of the Member States, as well as the European Court of Human Rights. The exercise of fundamental freedoms in most of Europe, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, are subject to conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law in order to ensure that the exercise of these freedoms do not unfairly damage other people's rights. It is not a matter of quelling what one says or does but, a matter which dictates respect and tolerance in democratic countries which are multicultural.



For the simple reason that freedom of speech is upheld as an absolute right without benefit of thought on how that can be abused.



Which proves that the absolutist position can be refuted. Whilst the law on funeral protest merely restricts distance, that restriction in itself curtails the exercise to free speech in so far as they cannot say what they want to say where they would want to say it.



Oh, yes. Would'nt it be wonderful if everyone could just be nicer? It's really the only way to make the tensions redundant between freedom of expression and concerns to protect and respect religious sentiments.

Well, of course. I must be really inarticulate because I never thought that idea was in doubt or that we were disagreeing about that. Even in countries that pride themselves on free speech, it's not absolute and never was. My apologies if I have taken up your time or we have been talking across each other.

DJ, the Eucharist is Holy and a Sacrament to Catholics. It is not an artistic expression. Myers also was quite specific that he meant to desecrate the Eucharist for all the reasons he stated. Would he have been able to defend his action in Court? I don't think so. Surely, one can find codes of practice which regulates conduct of educators regardless of what faith he holds or even when he holds none. But, it takes a plaintiff to issue proceedings in Court and if Catholics were to take each vilification against their faith, we'd be rioting everyday. We can only vent. And, pray.

Gaston Hall is not a Church nor a Chapel. It is simply a hall. And, as Georgetown is a Catholic university run by Jesuits, it would have signage and symbols of our faith all over the place. The White House knew that.

What I don't understand is, did'nt the incumbent profess to be Christian?

No apology necessary, Ellemm.

Seriously, Lola, people around here would not look on stained-glass windows or crucifixes favorably -- which of course, does nothing to 'fix' the covering of the IHS. Anything that looks Latin or too high-church, does not make a lot of people happy inside, particularly if they view Catholics as cultists anyway. (Although I suppose Obama could have changed the emails that go around from "he's a Muslim!" to "He's a Catholic!")

Like I said, foolish idea. I have the suspicion that some folks at the White House thought the background would look Christian, but not too Christian of one type, if that makes sense -- and they would be wrong. Really, if you don't want people picking apart your symbolism, don't speak in front of anything that looks like a church, or do it and don't apologize. I don't know what they were thinking.

Exactly, Ellemm. Remember what I said about Notre Dame? He's invited to speak at their commencement and he will don a robe which would have symbols on either arm. Don't know how they'll get him off that one. It would be like having a jock jacket without the letters. LOL!