My opinion is no. It is yet another aspect of our governments philosophy of spending money left and right and their belief that our money is their money. That being said…

The major point of contention here is not so much the funding of art by the government, it is the funding of art that is obviously an attack on a faith. While I think Christians need to care less about the art of the world, even when it is an attack, the head of the Catholic league has a good point.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue said the four-minute video “was designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians,” and he blasted the museum’s federal funding.

“If the government can’t fund the promotion of religion, it shouldn’t be in the business of funding an animus to religion,” he said.

There is reason in his argument, if the government is forbidden to support any faith, how is it OK for the same government to support anything that attacks a faith, any faith. It is a rule based solely on hypocrisy and it stems from the progressive left. These leftist are the ones who constantly sue to keep a cross off a burial plot simply because somewhere it received a dime of federal money or to keep an angel off the top of a Christmas tree in some town since it is a city supported effort. They fight as hard as they can to remove any type of religious expression, specifically Christian expression, from being around anything that could be in any way construed as government supported. But they will turn around with hands out raking in the federal dough in order to bring is Ants on Christ or the even more famous Feces on Christ. It is a hypocrisy that knows no end and needs to be stopped. If we can not proclaim our love of our God in any forum where tax dollars are spent, then they should not be able to proclaim their hate of all the is Christianity when funded by our tax dollars. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

At least there is one positive to this story. The “artist” who made this depiction has found out if Christ finds his “art” amusing or even art at all. We will have to wait to find out that verdict…..

A Smithsonian exhibit that includes a video of ants crawling on a crucified Christ has triggered an unholy backlash — with the head of the Catholic League fuming that the artwork is “hate speech.”

“A Fire in My Belly,” by the late artist David Wojnarowicz, is included in “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” a show at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery to run through Feb. 13.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue said the four-minute video “was designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians,” and he blasted the museum’s federal funding.

“If the government can’t fund the promotion of religion, it shouldn’t be in the business of funding an animus to religion,” he said. Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas declined to comment “on people’s opinions on art,” but noted that the museum, although 55 percent funded by Congress, raises its own money for exhibits.

What is your opinion on government funded art and even more to the point, government funded attacks on faith disguised as art? And does anyone fall for the nonsense explanation by the Smithsonian that even though they receive 55% of their overall funding from tax dollars, this particular event should not be construed as tax funded because they raise their own funds for exhibits? Maybe I am missing something here, but even if it is true that they raise all the exhibits funding themselves, they are able to do that because 55% of their bills are paid for by us. This would mean that even though they raised the funds for the exhibit, it is still 55% funded by us via the government making their entire business tax funded hence they would be bound by the same laws as everyone else that is tax funded. But hell if that works, then all churches should take public funds, but when they want to spread their message to the government, in government buildings, or in public forums, simply raise the funds for that particular venture making it A-OK under the law.