Secondly, even if he was, it could hardly be more disgusting than the innumerable pictures of people being tortured that seems to comprise the major part of sacred art. If you say that public money cannot be used to display pictures that offend Christians, then public art cannot be used to display pictures that glorify Christianity. If they can't show theirs then you can't show yours. Ok?

I understand the feeling that my tax money should not be used to fund art that I don't like, or care about, or aren't interested in, but my tax money goes to build football stadiums that I don't care about and it goes to fund traffic control for the those football stadiums. My tax money is going to fund stadiums for a sport that pays it's players millions yet expects me to subsidize the owners. Even if I liked football, I couldn't afford to go to a game. It costs too much.

If I have to fund football stadiums, and golf courses, and new housing developments (yes, sweetie, my taxes pay to put in the infrastructure to support the new developments since the developers are too cheap to pay the full costs). I pay for the incredibly expensive infrastructure that supports automobile ownership, yet I don't own a car. If I have to pay for these I don't see why there is a problem in the infinitesimal amount that goes to pay for art, and not just staid and approved art.

In some ways it's a matter of perspective. If someone had put dung on a piece of sacred Native American art, it would be the liberal establishment that would have risen in horror at the sacrilege. Rushdie just wrote a book the Islam world didn't like and he was threatened with death. Right now people are yelling "censorship" but many of these same people think we should get rid of books that aren't politically correct, such as "Tom Sawyer". You can't get rid of what you don't like without giving other people the idea they can rid of what they don't like.

Censorship is always a stupid idea. Always!