"Hey, that's Jesus up there!"

Upon entering school last week, I was greeted by a display of 5 murals by Mexican-American artist, Hector Duarte, exhibited in one of the major stairwells.

Beyond the sheer size of these murals, their image content struck me as well. The largest mural, placed in the center of the stairwell, is a picture of Jesus coming out of a pool of water and headed towards what appears to be the Chicago skyline. The name of the mural is Cristo Migrante.

Initially, I was surprised by the schools decision to put up a picture of Jesus in school, much less one that was nearly 8 feet tall. I was confused, yet appreciative of the schools initiative to bring in a potentially controversial piece of art. In my opinion, a good education challenges you and forces you to question society and yourself.

That night, as I aimlessly scrolled down my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across an interesting status post. It read –
There’s a big Jesus painting over 30ft high in our school. Every heard of separation of church and state?

What ensued for the rest of the night was a cyber-battle consisting of nearly 200 comments from different people’s interpretations on the true meaning of Duarte’s painting. Some argued that Duarte’s painting infringed on personal religious taste, while others reasoned that Huarte’s painting was hardly about religion and rather about the immigrant struggle. For the next few hours phrases like "separation of church and state” and "religious majority" showed up a lot, but soon the comments fizzled out.

However, by the end of it I was still left wondering, what cultural implications does the “separation of church and state” argument have? It seems that the first amendment and the clause of religion is brought up repeatedly in politics and in schools, but at what point does practicing one’s own religion begin to feel like religious intrusion to someone else? Should Duarte's painting be taken as art or does it preach religion?


Readers, I leave it up to you to answer this question.

Restricting the Usage of Language

It’s always surprised me how governments attempt to censor what people say. How can you censor something that is so universal, so common? I mean it’s language! Unless you take my voice-box out or put a padlock over my mouth, I am free to say whatever I like. So, how is it that governments censor what people say? I actually find it quite comical; in reality the government has very little power in restraining language. It seems to me that they are just trying to squeeze out some droplets of authority.

Besides the sheer impossibility of censoring every single word that comes out of every person’s mouth, some governments are still trying to make the feat.

For example, in Pakistan, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, has banned certain words from appearing in text messages. The PTA feels that it is preventing “obnoxious communication”; however, among the 1,600 words outlawed are words as simple as ‘tongue’. To view the list of outlawed texting words, click here (some explicit language).

Charles M. Madigan, of the Chicago Tribune, said, “I think it's hilarious that the authorities in Pakistan believe they can restrain the use of language, even using technology to block messages that contain these words”. Frankly, I agree.

In addition, China has begun to censor web material. Chinese authorities feel that as political tensions rise, they want to control what their citizens read and discuss online. It might seem that tech-savvy computer-ites would find ways around these restrictions, but an intricate mix of technology and plain-old intimidation has ensured that citizens remain oppressed.

But what about language censorship in the good ol’ red, white, and blue? Surprisingly,even here, we censor. While our government hasn't taken to extreme measures like China and Pakistan has, if you’ve ever seen a show on MTV you’ll know that many words are bleeped out. In comedian, George Carlin’s speech on the Seven Dirty Words not allowed on television, he explains why television programs bleep certain words out. While there clearly is a difference between bleeping out some words because they are distasteful and completely stopping search engines if the word ‘democracy revolution’ is typed in, they both are still forms of censorship. Mind you, too, that in America, citizens stand firmly to their right to freedom of speech, so if the government tried to pull a stunt like Pakistan or China, I’m sure there would be immense backlash.

In my opinion, language is a beauty and art and culture. Trying to limit that can only lead to cultural deterioration.