The Washington Times published an op-ed today promoting the preposterous notion that the National Portrait Gallery's “Hide/Seek” exhibit was full of “lewd, sado-masochistic porn displays” created by artists “obstinately devoted to anti-Christian prejudices.”

As we have noted, the right wing's claim that the exhibit is anti-Christian seems to be based entirely on the inclusion of a video featuring 11 seconds' worth of footage showing ants crawling on a crucifix. The claim that this imagery is sacrilegious is contradicted by reporting in the original CNSNews.com article that formed the basis of the right's anti-gay campaign against the exhibit. (The Smithsonian has removed the video.)

The writer of the Washington Times op-ed, Justin Paulette of the Ashbrook Center's No Left Turns blog, also stated the Smithsonian's decision to remove the video was “rather akin to praising an acquaintance's decision to stop beating his girlfriend -- he shouldn't have done it in the first place.”

A good share of conserva- tive commentators have avoided remarking on the Smithsonian scandal involving the gay-themed “Hide/Seek” exhibit featuring a video of ants crawling over a bloody, crucified Christ, among other lewd, sado-masochistic porn displays. There was no need to comment because it all had been said before. The cowards and hypocrites who constitute the chattering-class activists of the art world dogmatically avoid offending those corners of society deeply in need of critical reflection, such as Islam and the Middle East, or considered sacrosanct, such as feminism and racial/ethnic/sexual minorities, under the banner of tolerance and diversity. Yet these same noble paragons ruthlessly and intentionally insult Christians and everyone with a modicum of taste and decency, all the while praising their double standard as speaking truth to power.

The Smithsonian pulled the offensive piece after the Catholic League raised a fuss and called for an end of public funding. Yet I can't see praising the Smithsonian for this decision, as it's rather akin to praising an acquaintance's decision to stop beating his girlfriend - he shouldn't have done it in the first place. Belatedly pulling the piece merely represented the Smithsonian's grudging adoption of the common decency obvious to any adolescent of average intelligence and morality.

[...]

Where to start? Let's test their sincerity: I suggest the Smithsonian proudly present an exhibition intentionally offensive and deeply degrading toward women, gays, blacks, liberals and the like while praising the Catholic Church, conservative leaders, the military and religious morality. Let's call it a socio-psychological reflection upon modern perceptions of diversity or something meaningless like that. Then let's see the Warhol Foundation rush to its defense when the offended groups demand removal and accompanying mea culpas. Today's anti-censorship warriors would have to be roused from their slavering frenzy just to reverse their “mission to defend freedom of expression wherever and whenever it is under attack.” They would claim it wasn't really art or something equally foolish, call for censorship (under a different name) and immediately begin feeling superior again.

And, just for the record, those who intentionally attempt to offend and degrade other people based on religious and ethnic traditions are bigots - not the victims who protest the treatment. Let's be clear.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

Is there any doubt that the Christ-with-ants artists and the art community that the Warhol Foundation represents are obstinately devoted to anti-Christian prejudices and regard religious conservatives with hatred and intolerance?