Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit

Fire in My Belly de David Wojnarowicz, Diamanda Galas
Uploaded by altimsah. – Independent web videos.

Yesterday, the National Portrait Gallery pulled a video installation from the exhibit “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture” following an uproar from conservative groups. The four-minute video, “A Fire in My Belly” by late artist David Wojnarowicz, depicts ants crawling over Jesus Christ, symbolizing the pain suffered by AIDS victims.

Hide/Seek marks the first major museum survey to explore sexual identity and LGBT themes in American portraiture, and features pieces by Andy Warhol, Annie Leibowitz and Jasper Johns. Although the exhibit has been in place since Oct. 30, it only drew criticism following the publication of an article on Monday by conservative news site The article notes that the “Christmas-season exhibit” has used federal funds to display “naked brothers kissing, genitalia, and Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The Smithsonian does receive roughly 70 percent of its funding from the federal government, though funds for specific exhibits — including this one — are raised privately.

In the maelstrom that followed, a National Portrait Gallery spokeswoman said the museum and other Smithsonian museums have been flooded with calls, with people contacting “any e-mail address they could find.” Prior to the article, she said no complaints had been received.

Museum director Martin Sullivan released a statement yesterday about the decision to pull the piece, a portion of which is as follows:

“I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.

The museum’s statement at the exhibition’s entrance, “This exhibition contains mature themes,” will remain in place.”

It only takes a quick glance at the comments on CNS to see what type of feedback the Smithsonian was receiving yesterday. But the criticism hasn’t been restricted to ordinary CNS readers. The Hill reports that House Speaker-designate Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have called for the exhibit to be shuttered, with Cantor calling the exhibit “an outrageous use of taxpayer money.”

Of course, the larger question here for the Smithsonian is whether their funding is at risk. TBD notes that Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, has called for the Smithsonian’s budget to be reviewed and their books audited. TBD does a great job of taking a look back on whether past threats over controversial pieces have resulted in actual budget cuts for museums.

Sullivan has stated that the exhibit will remain open as planned through February 13.

UPDATE: In protest of the National Portrait Gallery’s decision, Transformer Gallery will be showing “A Fire in My Belly” on a continuous 24-hour loop. The gallery is also organizing a silent walk to the museum at 5:30 p.m.

Rebecca Gross

Raised in nearby MoCo, Rebecca happily jumped the District line in 2005. When not stuck behind a computer, she can be found exploring the city’s many wonders, usually with her trusty canine sidekick Jasper Jones. Questions, comments, concerns? Email her at RebeccaGross (at)

152 thoughts on “Smithsonian Pulls Piece from Landmark LGBT Exhibit

  1. gee i watched this video and it looked more like a 9-inch nails music video than anything else. so let’s see… if freedom isn’t free, TJ, why is someone else’s video-masturbation my responsibility to pay for? as others said, if you wish to say it, or show it, pay for it yourself. does an 8 year old son have to ‘pay’ for someone else’s disagreeable what-evers? with what — his allowance? that was the dumbest post i ever saw. oh yeah and in the video, what’s with the guy unzipping his pants and taking ‘it’ out? keep it where it belongs and you’ll avoid all kinds of diseases and sufferings. hey TJ did you tell that to your 8 year old? you may want to consider it. free will is one thing. making me pay for your freedom-art ain’t freedom for me.

  2. I have read many comments about the fact that no museum would EVER allow ANY depiction of Muhammad out of respect (fear of death at the hands of a member of the Religion of peace is closer to the truth)
    I challenge the Arts World to start showing it’s integrity and start using Muhammad and Allah in it’s work the same way God and Jesus are used. Let’s start with Hollywood utilizing Allah’s and Muhammad’s names in the same way Jesus Christ and God are maligned. For example: “Muhammad F*cking Prophet” or “Allah Damn it”. OK – time to go back to reality – it’ll never happen because all Christians do is boycott, protest or try to prevent their tax dollars from being used to insult the God that they worship. They are not known to strap bombs to themselves , while running int crowds screaming “Jehovah Ahkbar!”

  3. if Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity

  4. Do this crap on your own time and on your own dime!
    This is a free country, why is this institute tax
    supported anyway, especially during such dark economic times as this!

  5. Making fun of Allah would get you dead It is not OK with me to be Anti-Christian or politically correct Stop this Dung I do not want my Tax monies to go for this junk defund them now

  6. If it weren’t for their double standards, the left would have no standards at all. Splitting hairs and contradicting themselves is the liberal sport of life. If these cowardly artists really wanted to make a statement, they’d boldly confront Islam’s mistreatment of homosexuals and women with an “in your face Mohammed” statement. But of course real outrage, requires real courage, a quantity is short supply on the morally equivocating left. And for another bold move, instead of sucking up tax payer funds to subsidize agenda-driven “art”, why not forgo the feast at the public trough and redirect those self-serving “art dollars” to feeding the the hungry. Oh, and while the lefties have no problem spending, or pocketing other people’s tax money as “art subsidies”, it’s common knowledge how tight-fisted they are with their own charitable contributions. And for the final bogus arguement that the outrage over the defiling of Jesus is censorship, you can say or paint whatever you want, but don’t ask the taxpayer to be your sugar daddy. Grow up, man up, and wake up.

  7. I wonder how the gay community would feel if the Smithsonian supported a mocking, anti-gay exhibit.

    Would they be tolerant and call it thought provoking ‘art,’ or would they demand it be shut down?

    I think we all know how that would go over.

  8. While I am generally against censorship (esp government censorship), this “work” needs to be looked at in the cultural context of our day. Fact: when “art” depicts anything that might possibly be objectionable to Muslims no matter how unreasonable the objection, great deference is shown to Muslims. Why? When “art” depicts Christianity in a less than pleasing light, the powers that be call it “edgy.” I call this double standard cowardice, which underlies all political correctness. Here’s a challenge for “artists” (so-called): since most of you lean left and since you play to a left leaning crowd (you know you do), the brave thing – the edgy thing would be to create art that the Right appreciates and that tweaks YOUR audience. What’s going on most of the time is better called “performance art” where the underlying “piece” is simply a provocation, and the REAL SHOW is the vitriolic anger of those who are offended (again, as long as the offended aren’t Muslims, or blacks, or liberal women, etc.). Completely gutless.

  9. JOE says, “I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed…”

    Until the morally relativist phonies can ever be honest with themselves, anyone with a modicum of discernment realizes their idiocies for what they are: simply verbal masturbation. If it wasn’t for the whining of the tiny atheist minority in this country demanding the removal of prayers in school, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, nativity scenes in parks, using the word “Christmas” in department stores, and on, and on, and on … Christians would not be as outraged at your death by a thousand cuts strategy to marginalize and destroy them. Any idea how foolish it sounds to say, “I think its funny that an Atheist wouldn’t demand a religious artwork removed… “???

  10. Freedom of speech must be protected at all cost! This is a fact of our Democracy, pure and simple. However, “reasonable” action, decency and discretion, also should be promoted within our society, especially by folks in positions of power and authority. The Smithsonian, a historic, esteemed and iconic American institution, was made possible by a Brit who never saw the shores of this great land. The purpose of his endowment was for the “increase & diffusion of Knowledge among men.” Accordingly, I’m pretty sure that imagery of ants crawling upon a likeness of Jesus Christ or photos of naked brothers kissing probably were NOT what he had in mind.

    The museum’s current “director,” a Mr. Martin Sullivan, has shown through this exhibit a seemingly complete disregard for the Smithsonian’s founder’s intentions. Moreover, he has clearly brought into question his own ability to distinguish between that which is reasonable, decent and discrete, versus that which is Pure Horse Crap!

    Accordingly, Mr. Sullivan, find some grace and kindly step down from your position. Voters, take a moment to contact your Senators and Congressmen to have the plug pulled on federal funding of the Smithsonian. Not only is your money being wasted, but we simply cannot afford it!

    As for Freedom Speech, our Constitutions 1st Amendment, I’m going to do my part to protect it at all cost. And, ultimately, the only way to do so is by practicing the 2nd Amendment. How does that sit with all you free-thinking, self-absorbed, straight-male-WASP-hating, Godless liberals?

  11. Katarica:
    The Smithsonian should not host it as the facility is tax supported. If someone wants to peddle this kind of fecal matter let them exhibit it in a facility that is not supported by my dollars.

    If the Smithsonian can not stick to science and history and the display of its development then I am for not funding it at all. Let the Gay, lesbian, transvestite, bi-sexual, trans-species-sexual, trans-natural community pool their own money together and and create an exhibit hall for themselves, then they can show their (expletive) to their hearts content!

  12. In Jesus own words “Father forgive them…for they know not what they do”
    Praise God for forgivness and mercy because this nation needs some.

  13. Just a few quick points I’d like to make to my some of you who have commented:

    1) Christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship with God, please stop representing us by throwing on the Christian jersey if you aren’t actually playing for the team; you are the reason so many people think we are hypocrites.

    2) Yes it IS offensive when people who have stolen the fruit of my labors turn and use those fruits to fund things which display my Savior to the world in ways that do not glorify Him.

    3) Didn’t the Smithsonian used to be a little more elevated? Have none of my fellow Christians taken note of the barren fig tree? Were we not instructed about how we would know the season of the last days? Remember the faithful Jeremiah, and how the people of his day refused to hear the truth, but listened only to the false prophets who continually told them that all was well, that they should go back to sleep… But what did Christ say? “But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.”

  14. “making me pay for your freedom-art ain’t freedom for me.”

    BS. Gays pay taxes that fund YOUR sherades, FAR more of it, and they can’t even so much as get married in most places. Stop getting your panties in a bind over nothing.

  15. All the “artist” had to do was put an AIDS victim on the cross…not Jesus Christ. He could have skipped the cross all together. Then the point would have been made,but he wouldn’t be the “hero” to his GLBT friends. No, he knew what he was doing and chose to be…well, you put in the word.

  16. Dear Taxpaying Americans,

    I am an Artist. A theatre artist. I never took a nickel of grant money or public money.

    I produce excellent plays based upon mythology, folk tales, religious tales and original work.

    I am not famous nor do I lust for fame. Many of my colleagues are of the same mind.

    You do not have to fund artists. The graphic arts industry in in the hundreds of billions.

    Theatre Arts industry just spent 330 million on a broadway show named spiderman–while 400 families control the union that works the Broadway houses.

    Actors make upwards of 20 million a picture. Let them pay for their friends, relatives and others who can only get jobs through the “casting couch” method.

    The music industry amasses hundreds of billions of dollars–why do taxpayers have to fund music?

    If the Market does not need the artists works, why should we pay for it.

    I ask for noone to fund my work…I actually earn the money to produce my works.

    Let all Artists find the courage of their convictions and stop begging hardworking Americans for their hard earned money to fund the wims of a few cowardly artists.

    Rowdy Boots

  17. The mild imagery in this apparently “anti-Christian” piece was FAR too kind. Just look at how personally all the filthy ego-masturbating “Christians” on this thread imagined it. They are not the only American citizens, they are not the tax payers, and they certainly are not the only people worthy of human concerns. I don’t care if your too insecure to handle a free society.

    And, FYI, some find you, your life, and your tax subsidized activities offensive as well – especially people who watched thousands of friends die as your leaders laughed and cheered, and continue to demonize and demand legal and social supremacy today.

  18. “It was not the museum’s intention to offend.”

    What a load!

    It was absolutely their intention to offend. What they completely miscalculated is HOW MUCH it would offend any reasonable human being.

    There is no other possible reason for their DECISION to use a depiction of Jesus Christ, when their point could be made just as well with any other likeness.

    As others have stated, they might as well have used a Mohammad likeness, but where the idiots think offending Christians is fun / funny, they seem to have the presence of mind to realize offending Muslims can be a lethal mistake.

  19. I am so sick and tired of folks claiming any sort of perversion and offensive use of religious symbols is “art” because some jerk who calls himself an artist slapped some material together and threw it out there for the world to see. Hog wash. Its garbage, its insulting to a most holy God and His people. My gosh, what is wrong with people when they are willing to accept these this sort of rubbish? This stuff is like an open sewer, and yes, there is no way it would have been allowed if it had been Muhammad. If the subject is AIDS there were a heck of a lot of other ways to get the message across. Disgusting.

  20. OMFG, 11 seconds of a 4 minute clip that’s paid for privately, a flash of imagery so inconsequential as to be essentially unnoticeable unless your looking for it, shows a cross with ants on it!!!! Call the media, call your senators, call the police, destroy the Smithsonian!!! Only I get to use facilities paid for by their taxes.

  21. Why does the left continue to attack Judeo-Christian values? This is constant — “piss Christ” from Basquiat, various “Jesus was gay” works, etc.

    I’d like to see them besmirch the buddha, mohammed, and shiva, but I’m not holding my breath.


  23. It seems that there is some confusion reading some of these comments about the nature of objections to the supposed art.

    1. There are no violent protests as there has been from Mohammedan cartoons.
    2. The cartoons were privately funded.
    3. Smithsonian Curators should have developed better taste as to what is good artistic expression.
    4. AIDS is a preventable disease spread by promiscuous behavior.
    5. As an artist myself, I avoid viewing hideous works if at all possible.
    6. There is really nothing about this work that is desirable whatsoever.
    7. The Smithsonian should have it’s funding cut like the rest of Americans that are not living off of taxpayer money and have had to do with less.

  24. The hatred posted on here is ridiculous. This exhibit was PRIVATELY FUNDED and if you don’t like what’s in it then DON’T GO IN IT. It’s pretty sad that I sometimes feel embarrassed to say that I was raised a Christian, because of the intense hatred that so many Christians spew. Remember Sunday school when you were taught to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”? We expect our children to do these things, and yet the majority of us completely forget them as soon as we see something we don’t like.
    Absolutely nothing about the video was meant to be offensive or to attack any religion. If you are so lacking in confidence in your own beliefs that you find offense in art that was not malicious in any way, then you need to reevaluate your opinions rather than attack others’.
    I personally am looking forward to seeing that exhibit as soon as I get the chance. All the haters on here would probably also benefit from visiting it.

  25. This is why God commanded us to NOT carve graven images of anything in Heaven! It’s in the book…read it! ;)

  26. “Apparently free will is something that some Christians accept only if it doesn’t offend their delicate sensibilities.”

    Then don’t use their money.

  27. I have read the Bible multiple times. If a person is not a Christian and decides that showing ants crawling on a crucifix is what he needs to make a point, do Christians have a right to criticize? NO. Not at all. Christians should NOT impose their beliefs on others, because it is a person’s choice to believe in Christ. Being bombarded does nothing. So in the meantime, tolerance and acceptance need to be exercised, NOT ALL THIS HATRED. Good lord these comments really depress me.

  28. “If Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity”


  29. It seems ridiculous to spend tax dollars on museums that can not support themselves. If people want to see art or literature or… then let them pay for it and support those areas. We can’t continue putting money in non-essential areas at the expense of losing the ability to give us choices and support the job and life-giving goal we need now. If we continue as we are, the chinese will soon be collecting our money. But not as taxes, but as the governments take to make this a country that becomes a sattelite for them, equal for all. They have trouble with a life that is legislated…do we want that because we don’t see the depth of our woes?

  30. If you don’t want you tax money funding the arts, then don’t pay the portion of your tax dollars which goes to the arts.
    Every year true pacifists with the courage of their convictions withhold the portion of their taxes which would go to the Department of Defense. I bet Jesus would do it.

  31. I have been to the smithsonian several times. That will be no more! I hope the rest of this country takes offence to this POS museum of garbage. I would want to see this place totally disfunded from the government and the persons responsible for this insult brought to justice.

  32. You know it’s odd that an HIV/AIDs activist would trash Jesus, when following the Bible’s teachings on sexuality would virtually eliminate STDs.

  33. “I have read the Bible multiple times. If a person is not a Christian and decides that showing ants crawling on a crucifix is what he needs to make a point, do Christians have a right to criticize? NO. Not at all.”

    So we don’t have the right to express criticism concerning a sacreligious “work of art”? I thought that’s what the freedom of speech was about. Who’s being intolerant?

  34. “The hatred posted on here is ridiculous.”

    It’s hateful to express criticism about a “work of art”?

    “This exhibit was PRIVATELY FUNDED and if you don’t like what’s in it then DON’T GO IN IT.”

    Can you provide a link to the profit and loss statement for this exhibit? Thanks.

    “It’s pretty sad that I sometimes feel embarrassed to say that I was raised a Christian, because of the intense hatred that so many Christians spew.”

    Why would you be embarrassed? If Christians aren’t following Jesus’ teachings, it’s not a reflection on Jesus, now is it?

    “Remember Sunday school when you were taught to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”? We expect our children to do these things, and yet the majority of us completely forget them as soon as we see something we don’t like.”


    “Absolutely nothing about the video was meant to be offensive or to attack any religion.”

    How do you know?

    “If you are so lacking in confidence in your own beliefs”

    I’m not, thanks.

    “that you find offense in art that was not malicious in any way,”

    How do you know?

    “then you need to reevaluate your opinions rather than attack others’.”

    You assume a lot in your post.

  35. Aside from the ants on the crucifix, what is all the masterbation about? Why does every exhibit about gay life have to be so full of pornagraphic images?

  36. Interesting how quiet it was until a small conservative Christian website revealed what was done. Had this been Muhammad instead of Jesus, the uproar from MSM would have been deafening.

  37. Dittos on Ava P. (#6)!!!

    I wonder what made the lesbos at the Smithsonian think this was acceptable in any venue???

    Why not show Obama covered in ants? At least it would correctly depict the failed Hoax and Chains he placed on the black community he says he’s supports! Bush doesn’t look so bad after 2-years of Obooboo (Jimmy Carter on steroids!)

  38. Interesting how much emphasis on tolerance by Christians. If we keep moving towards an Islam enviornment, such as Europe is doing, we will say goodbye to tolerance. Really, can you imagine anything close to this being accepted by Muslims. There is definitely a double standard.

  39. I am sure if this would have been Muhammed, it would never have been included in the exhibit out of sensitivity for Islam, after all it is a religion of peace. The same kind of sensitivity never goes for Christianity or Christ or depictions of Mary at the Whitney. What we’ve got here in the entire exhibit is political crap masquerading as art.

  40. Justin-
    Christians should have free speech like everyone else. We’re Americans, that’s our right. But if Christians are truly loving as God commands they would not be so malicious. I can’t see how you could could call yourself a Christian and yet say such vicious things. These are not intellectual criticisms of art, but attacks against someone else’s beliefs and feelings. If you feel the need to react this way to something, then that implies to the world that you don’t have confidence in yourself. If you’ve ever taken a psychology class or paid attention to people around you, you know this.
    Funding? Research it. “While the Smithsonian receives federal funding for their facilities, funds for exhibitions are raised privately, Smithsonian spokesperson Linda St. Thomas told CNS. Donors for the exhibit included The Calamus Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, The John Burton Harter Charitable Foundation, and The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation. Donors to the exhibit have decried the decision.” In one of the comments someone said that Andy Warhol and other artists should be funding this, there ya go. They are. So get over it. And don’t go to the damn exhibit if it’s such a big deal.
    If you want to accuse me of assuming, read through all the posts on here. I think people’s opinions and hatred are spelled out pretty well. If you want to read some of David Wojnarowicz’s beliefs, google him and read his quotes. Let me know if you find something malicious, because I have yet to. It was stated explicitly in multiple comments made by museum spokespersons that he had not meant to attack anyone by it. So why on earth should any of us jump to the conclusion that that was his intent? The other posts on here are jumping to far more conclusions than I am!
    This is a work of his that I thought was especially poignant. He is stating facts how he sees them. At no point does he attack anyone else. Look through his other art. It depicts sexual and morbid things, because that is how he saw his life: he was very sexual and dealt with impending death daily because of his AIDS. Sooo next time someone wants to paint a Madonna and Child and have it displayed in a public museum, Atheists should get up in arms because the artist is expressing his/her opinion through religious symbols that infringe upon the Atheist’s beliefs, right?! Right. There is so much hypocrisy on this page.

    And in the end, WHY DOES ANY OF THE SEMANTICS MATTER!!!!??!?!??!?!!? If you proclaim to be a Christian, for God’s sake (and in no way am I taking the Lord’s name in vain…I mean that quite literally) STOP ATTACKING A PERSON WHOM YOU DO NOT KNOW AND HAVE NO SOLID EVIDENCE WITH WHICH TO ACCUSE HIM OF THESE THINGS.

    Oh, and I’m embarrassed because these mean and intolerant Christians give all Christians a horrible name, and the more “Christians” becoming these loathing, judgemental people, the more I doubt that this is a religion for me. Yeah, I don’t have confidence in my own religious beliefs. But I don’t take it out on others.

  41. ““If Christ was just sitting there smiling the ACLU would be up in arms about Govt property and the establishment of Christianity”


    More than brilliant! This comment gets right to the heart of the matter! If this exhibit had been about Mohammed it would have never seen the light of day, but because it contained a christian image, the powers that be saw no harm in allowing it! Considering their reaction to the cartoons the hypocrisy of leftists is truly amazing!

  42. “The “What if you put ants on Muhammad’s face” argument is completely specious.”

    Nonsense. “Brave” artists use Christian symbols on a regular basis, and often while sucking on public funds. The response is, at worst, some minor grumbling from Christians and questions about the use of gov’t funds for such “art”. Some “bravery” there, some risks taken.

    I’m waiting for the “brave” artist to use a likeness of Muhammad. The response, given murderous rampages around the world over cartoons, would be serious. THAT would require bravery. Thus it won’t happen.

  43. @CB You may have been raised in a Christian home, but are you sure you’re a true Christian? Most Bible believing Christians would not see such a show, as the Bible tells us in, Phillipians 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
    Since this exhibit and others like it are none of these, Christians ought not to see such exhibits.
    This may be a privately funded exhibit, but as many others have already pointed out, it is a tax funded, publically owned institution, and those who are employed to work are paid by tax payers, so using the private exhibit argument doesn’t wash.
    I’m an artist as well, so to my fellow artists on the comments here- thank you! I don’t and will never take tax money for my work either. To the person who commented about the fact that liberals donate heavily to such “endowments” and foundations yet contribute miniscule amounts if ever to actual charities to help those they claim to care about-the poor, thank you for pointing that out!
    If folks want to see this kind of exhibit- go for it! Just do it in a private gallery with private donations. That’s not censorship.

  44. All we are saying is to cover the Lord Jesus Christ with ants is not making a statement. It is a lack of respect and understanding for those who claim Jesus is Lord and the Prince of Peace. Comparing what would happen if the same ‘art’ was aimed at Islam, is to show how intolerant those who desire tolerance of everyone else are. Any artist doing the same thing to Muhammend would fear for his life, not only have to worry about comments from those who disagree.

  45. “While the Smithsonian receives federal funding for their facilities, funds for exhibitions are raised privately…”

    Give me a break. Money is fungible, period. Gov’t money obtained for facilities is money that doesn’t have to be raised privately for that purpose, thus it can be reserved for exhibitions. The public is still on the hook and the exhibitors are still on the dole.

  46. OH MY GOD, PEOPLE! You may be right that Islam is treated with more care than Christianity. I agree that we should be able to depict Mohammed without fear of violence. But Christians are told that they will be persecuted. And that they should still turn the other cheek. So please, people, grow up and be the bigger person. I don’t even go to church anymore because I am so disillusioned by these hypocrisies, and yet I somehow retained these teachings more than most of these practicing Christians. If you react so volatily you are as bad as the people persecuting you. So how on earth are you supposed to convince others that Christianity is the way to go? There’s a reason that there are fewer and fewer Christians in the world each year.

    Let people express their opinions. And the next time an Atheist demands a Bible statue in front of a courthouse should be taken down, shut up and get over it. Because you’re just as bad. I’m done with these intolerant comments. Go ahead and bash everything I say. I’m gonna go do something more important with my life than hate on someone’s art and peaceful expression. And I encourage all of you to do the same. Your hate does nothing but hurt you and push others away.
    Thank you to all the people on here who did not immediately assume that gays and “lesbos” (thanks for that gem, ‘Sick of Smithson. perverts’) and other unique PEOPLES (because yes, they are human beings too) are out to get them. We need more people like you in the world.

  47. CB’s tirades are laughable. Why, how dare taxpayers and/or Christians react to purile “art” subsidized by public funds that made insensitive use of religious symbols? Don’t they understand that that amounts to “hate”? Don’t they know how depressing it is? Don’t they understand that only “brave artists” have a right to (subsidized) freedom of speech?

  48. How does video of a man masturbating (2:07-2:20) express the suffering of those with AIDS? It is ridiculous to assert that the only problem with this video is the ants crawling on the crucifix. What’s the purpose of putting Jesus on the cross, side by side with a man masturbating, side by side with demonic images? Anyone who asserts this is just a video about suffering caused by AIDS needs to check their presumptions and their baises.