Brickbat: The Child Is Father to the Man

|

Officials at Rhode Island's Pilgrim High School asked junior Elizabeth Bierenday to paint a mural on a school wall, and they OKed her design, which showed a young boy aging into a grown man. But after the mural was finished, they painted over the final image which showed the man with a woman and child with wedding rings over the heads of the couple. Bierenday says she was told that image was offensive and could be considered a religious symbol.

Brickbat Archive

NEXT: A.M. Links: Affordable Care Act a Budget Buster, U.S. Citizen Challenges Use of Drone in Arrest, Deferred Tax Credits Push Sony Losses to $6.4 Billion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. On Friday, Bierenday spoke with John DePetro on WPRO-AM about the mural and said she was told that her original design may be offensive…

    This is true. Married people are often some of the most annoying people I know. Even more offensive would be when they have their first child.

    1. Nice predictable comments on the video, the best being we need to stop glorifying “white straight males.”

      The simple solution, of course, is to repaint the exact same picture, but to tell everyone the woman in the last picture is the boy from the earlier drawings, now a transgender female.

      A question: once a tranny is post-op, shouldn’t they lose their privileged status? I mean, now Chaz Bono is technically a straight white male, yes?

  2. So if it’s a religious symbol, does that mean the government will stop interfering with it?

  3. Bierenday says she was told that image was offensive and could be considered a religious symbol.

    Uh… since when? I guess I shouldn’t bother with my upcoming secular wedding.

    1. They decided they looked like halos.
      No, not the videogames.
      (Though I blame videogames!)

    2. Are you planning on having wedding rigs over your head?
      I imagine that the objection was that the rings looked like halos. Which is still stupid.
      I don’t think that religion should be promoted in any way by public schools, but this is is dumb. And who is offended?

      1. I don’t think that religion should be promoted in any way by public schools, but this is is dumb.

        I think it’s dumb they can’t manage to teach them English, Math and Science, so instead they teach them to paint on the walls.

        1. Well, I think art classes have their place in school, but yeah, those other ones should be the priority.

      2. And who is offended?

        Probably noone, but just the thought that someone might be is enough to freak some people right the fuck out. Especailly when it comes to TEH CHILDRENZ. If they can’t have test questions about dinosaurs or halloween in NYC…

      3. I’m offended they spend money for “artists” to paint murals on our public schools.

  4. Present company excluded, but to a lot of atheist, the First Amendment doesn’t mean hole lot. The whole point is to prevent any sort of public display of religion. Allowing that might keep people from worshiping the state.

    1. Sadly, that does seem to be the case for a lot. And this one is even more absurd than a lot of objections to religious displays. The problem seems to be that someone might be upset by an image that might be interpreted to include some symbolism that is sometimes used in religious art. How is that offensive? Even if it were a 1st amendment violation, you have to be some kind of twit to be offended.

    2. The whole point is to prevent any sort of public display of religion.

      I thought Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion meant Congress can’t declare or fund (establish) a religion. But this looks a lot like prohibiting the free exercise of what they think might be religion.

      1. It’s not even religion, it’s just shitty art. Doesn’t look at all halos to me just a shitty rendering of wedding bands to show they are married. Of course I’m not the perpetually offended type.

    3. The whole point is to prevent any sort of public display of religion.
      ——————————
      I don’t know about that…first amendment is to prevent the establishment of the church of the state, but it is also to prevent the state from stopping worship. And is someone really saying this mural amounts to worship? Really?

    4. to a lot of atheist

      [citation needed]

      1. Don’t call him on his Culture Warrior-isms. It just encourages him.

    5. The whole point is to prevent any sort of public display of religion.

      No. The whole point is to protect freedom of thought.

    6. The complaint had nothing to do with religion.

    7. A little off topic.

      Things I’ll probably never hear from a Christian regarding concerns over religious displays on government property:

      You know what, all of us are citizens and part of our country’s participatory democracy, be they Christian, atheist or any other creed. Times have changed and we live in a more diverse land than we did. I understand why someone of a different faith or no faith might perceive religious displays as endorsements. Our msg is too important to be impeded by these issues. Therefore I think we should no longer seek to have our Holiday icons displayed on government property. We need to be considerate of other people’s concerns. Perhaps we should never have done so in the first place.

      An Unknown Pundit can dream, can’t he? LOL

      As for this mural, obvious over-reaction from school administrators is obvious.

      Feel sorry for the young lady, though. You put together the design, get it approved, paint the mural and then you are informed by the school administration that because someone might take offense at wedding bands, the mural has to be, in effect, censored. Is there a more cowardly creature anywhere on Earth than a school administrator? Anywhere?

  5. are schools purposely trying to make themselves look stupid? Wow..the bar to being offended is getting lower by the day. Next week, some school board will decide that “good morning” is inappropriate for kids that may live in unhappy homes.

    1. I don’t think they even have to try anymore.

    2. Schools are run by education majors. They not trying to make themselves look stupid, they can’t help it.

      1. “Anyone who doesn’t understand the problem in American schools never dated an elementary-education major in college.” -PJ O’Rourke

    3. Conspiracy Brother: Let me tell you something about the word “good,” brotha. Good is an ancient anglo-saxon word, go-od, meanin the absence of color. I.E. it’s all good, which it is, OR Good Will Huntin’, meanin, “I’m Huntin’ Niggas!” So when you say good morning, what your telling me is “I’m gonna kill yo black ass, first thing in the mornin’!”

      Undercover brother beat you to it.

      1. Reminds of the “picnic” stupidity of a few years back when some idiot was claiming the word was a contraction of “pick a nigger”.

        1. The SPLC is having a massive orgasm reading all this hate speech.

          1. Fund raising should be good this year then.

            1. Barry might as well make Rev. Wright his WH spokesman at this rate.

    4. The whole idea that some acknowledgment of the existence of a certain religion is offensive just seems ridiculous. It’s like thinking that the 3 little Pigs is offensive to Muslims because it acknowledges the existence of an animal they are not supposed to eat. And I am strongly for the separation of church and state interpretation of the 1st.

  6. That actualyl makes a lot of sense dude. WOw.

    http://www.Really-Anon.tk

  7. This was my high school. The Fulkerson in question was in my class and he and I somehow ended up in the same university in DC.

    Anyways, mural controversies are nothing new, apparently.

    People finding innocuous shit offensive is nothing new, either, apparently (I never once looked at that Hendrix mural and thought “mmmmm….drugs!”. It was a shittily-painted design, though).

  8. It is religion that got it banned, or the assumption it makes that part of growing up male is marrying a woman, instead of staying single or marrying a guy?

    1. What are the percentages of men who do those three things?

      1. Not the point. They are looking to be non-offensive either way, I’m just wondering whose to blame… the atheists or the gays?

        1. I’m saying it’s a common thing, so why are you making an assumption if you have one man doing it?

          Unless the one boyman is supposed to be all men. In which case there should be a bunch of pissed off races. And handicapped people. And dwarfs.

        2. To be gay you have to be atheist, DUH! God hates fags.

          /sic

        3. She should have followed through, depicting the bitter divorce and custody hearings. Show the ex-wife with her new butch lover and everyone should be happy now.

          1. And the husband living in a refrigerator box because he can’t afford the alimony and child support.

  9. Some people at the school felt the mural didn’t accurately represent many students at Pilgrim and school officials decided to paint over the right side.

    Warwick is just outside of Providence, I’m guessing it was the gays.

    1. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Provincetown?

      1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..ode_Island

        The city gained the reputation as one of the most active and growing LGBT communities in the Northeast;[96][97] the rate of reported gay and lesbian relationships is 75% higher than the national average[98] and Providence has been named among the “Best Lesbian Places to Live”.[97] The former mayor, David Cicilline, won his election running as an openly gay man, making him the first openly gay mayor of a U.S. state capital.[78] Former Mayor Cianci instituted the position of Mayor’s Liaison to the Gay and Lesbian community in the 1990s.[97] There are numerous social and community organizations supporting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. Providence is home to the largest gay bathhouse in New England.[99]

  10. Bierenday says she was told that image was offensive and could be considered a religious symbol.

    I trust Bierenday was also told that the school officials could be considered idiots.

  11. Pilgrim High School asked junior Elizabeth Bierenday to paint a mural on a school wall, and they OKed her design…they painted over the final image which showed the man with a woman and child with wedding rings over the heads of the couple. Bierenday says she was told that image was offensive

    Why the hell did they OK the design in the first place if they were worried about upsetting some special snowflake who might recoil in horror at the sight of a married heterosexual couple?

    1. The gave it the OK, someone complained after that. Administrators are lazy, they’ll let shit go until someone starts complaining.

  12. the final image… showed the man with a woman and child with wedding rings over the heads of the couple. Bierenday says she was told that image was offensive and could be considered a religious symbol.

    What? Look at the mural. That image of the two rings is straight out of The Sims.

  13. Young Ms. Bierenday learned a valuable lesson about the idiocy of those in power. Perhaps the most valuable thing she will have learned in high school.

    1. Sadly, you may be right.

  14. Reason # 2134 not to have public schools.

  15. Here’s some info from a related article, it doesn’t appear to be a religious matter:

    Part of the mural was painted over after some people at the school argued the final image of a husband, wife and child might be offensive.

    http://www2.turnto10.com/news/…..ar-994306/

    1. Husband and wife? That’s hate speech!

    2. Note the phrasing, which neatly avoids the question of whether anyone was actually offended:

      some people at the school argued the final image of a husband, wife and child might be offensive.

      They took it down just in case anyone might, someday, potentially, perhaps, be offended, a little, maybe.

      1. Precautionary principle.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.