The owner of a movie theater has finally taken down a controversial painting he caused to be hung on the facade of his establishment, bowing to pressure from a few mortals who found the piece distasteful and unhumorous.
The painting in question depicted that nativity scene familiar to most Roman Catholics, but with the faces of President Arroyo and former president Joseph Estrada taking the place of those of Mary and Joseph.
Some people condemned the painting as blasphemous. Maybe it can be fairly conceded as such. But what blasphemy may ascribe to the painting can be assuaged by its clear humorous intent, and perhaps honest longing for political peace. Certainly no malice was meant there.
But the question has to be asked. If it goes against the grain of some sensibilities to portray Arroyo and Estrada as Mary and Joseph, would it have mattered any less if the artist used Cory Aquino and Bishop Oscar Cruz instead?
People being imperfect as they are, they are prone to certain biases that affect the way they think and act. And that is perfectly understandable. The trouble is, while it is easy to acknowledge imperfection, hardly anyone admits to prejudice.
And so we have a situation where a cheap painting that substituted Arroyo and Estrada for Mary and Joseph drawing condemnation from some people and yet the same people being totally mum on a legal ruling that freed a priest from sex charges for being the alter ego of Christ.
Mary and Joseph are held in very high regard by Christianity. Even in Islam, Mary holds a special place of respect. The Prophet Mohammed himself calls her one of the world's perfect women. Yet she and Joseph are not God. Jesus, on the other hand, is the Son of God.
It is thus more blasphemous to portray a priest as alter ego of Jesus if that priest is accused of playing with the bra straps and stroking the backs and arms of young girls while he hears their confession. Yet critics of the painting allowed this blasphemy to pass contention.