First, as you mentioned already Preston, anyone who is particularly surprised by this episode is not familiar with either this show or with Larry David’s work in general. Other things that have been used for comic fodder on “Curb” include: the KKK, fantasizing about a friend’s wife while masturbating, scrotal sprains, oral sex while driving, severing a relationship with a therapist after seeing him in a thong on the beach, apparent bestiality… I could go on for a long time, believe me. The point is that Larry David delights in making his viewers incredibly uncomfortable and that he himself is usually the butt of his jokes. Many posters at Fox are claiming that Jews and Muslims would never stand for such abuse. David is Jewish himself and really: if you think Jews ever get off easy on “Curb” then you definitely haven’t ever watched an episode all the way through.

I’m going to set Larry David aside now and focus on what I think is probably a bit more interesting: the meeting of art and religion and the people who cry heresy and blasphemy about it. This entire controversy brings to mind Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ. When Serrano displayed a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a glass of his own urine in 1989, the response was less measured than this. This episode will, ultimately, go down as another tempest-in-a-teapot scandal. Teeth will be gnashed and garments rent, but the cycle will be repeated.

Returning to the first issue I raised, we have a great example in both the Piss Christ controversy and this one of Christians presuming that we represent an unheard minority opinion. I do not think that the facts support this idea when it is impossible to even buy a soda from a vending machine without seeing the Christian name of God on the literal “coin of the realm”. Is it time for conservative Christianity to give up the “woe is us” rhetoric in the public square? Moreover, why is that line so seductive in the first place?

“Praise God! It’s a miracle,” two women decide as they fall to their knees in prayer.

The next day The Catholic League president Bill Donohue immediately demanded an apology from David, and the media had something to talk about other than Abdullah Abdullah dropping out of the Afghan run-off. For the media it was comic relief. For many Christians it was a call to arms against those who defile the “sacred.” (Check the comments on Fox’s coverage if you need verification—almost 1400 comments when I posted this.)

Is it offensive? Of course it is. A picture of Jesus on a sitcom may not be sacred, but it, in the Christian’s mind, still points to the sacred in some way. However, I gotta say we miss what’s going on here if we focus on the outcome of David’s heavy flow: a urine tear on a picture of Jesus. That’s not what’s important. David’s stunt was not so much about the urine on the picture of Jesus as it was a satire on religious zealotry. The kind of religious zealotry that continually proclaims one’s own martyrdom with no recognition of how “true belief” denies others’ freedom. Because, you know, if you’re preoccupied with your own perceived harm, when can you see how you have harmed others?

What’s more important here: Defending a water coloring of Jesus on a television show—a show, mind you, that has made its name off being offensive? Or, I don’t know, maybe calling to question some things that really matter? I hear there are a lot of hungry people in the city. Maybe we can be upset about that together.

Or, maybe we can get upset each time the first amendment doesn’t go our way. That sounds productive…

Watch the clip:
youtube.com

Media/Commentary from All Sides:
mediamatters.org
usatoday
firstthings.com
Bill O’Reilly (Video)