Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Rudy Giuliani on Civil Rights


Anti-Catholic art is disgusting; appoints decency council

A photography exhibit that includes a work depicting Jesus as a naked woman is stirring debate at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. The work “Yo Mama’s Last Supper” features the photographer nude and surrounded by 12 black apostles. Another collage depicts a topless woman, crucified.

“I think what they did is disgusting, it’s outrageous,” Giuliani said, adding that anti-Catholicism “is accepted in our city and in our society.” Giuliani is appointing a task force “that can set decency standards for those institutions that are using the taxpayers’ money.“

In 1999, the museum’s ”Sensation“ show featured an elephant dung-embellished Virgin Mary. The mayor froze the museum’s annual $7.2 million city subsidy, then sued in state court to evict the museum. A judge ruled that the city had violated the First Amendment and restored the funding. This time, Giuliani said he would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions he said are based on ”showing decency and respect for religion.“

Source: Associated Press in NY Times Feb 16, 2001

Brooklyn Museum closed due to lease rules, not censorship

Q: The mayor has pledged to withdraw city funds from the Brooklyn Museum’s display [of a dung-covered Virgin Mary].

A: The museum’s lease puts me in the middle of this whether I want to be or not. It says the mayor has to approve closing down the museum. And the mayor has to approve when this publicly funded museum starts to charge money. It’s supposed to be free. And they’re charging $9.00. So, I have to make a decision as the mayor to agree to closing down the museum for this purpose. And I don’t agree. I think this exhibit beyond even the desecration of the Virgin Mary is a horrible exhibit. There’s a pedophile that is glorified with the fingerprints of the children that the pedophile attacked. There are pigs in formaldehyde that are dissected. If you want to do this privately, you have every right to do it. This is not a matter of suppression. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars -about $12 million of it - and using it to subsidize this project.

Source: “This Week” (ABC News with Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts) Oct 3, 1999

Free speech for private expression, not publicly-funded art

Q: [Regarding the Brooklyn Museum’s display of “Sensation”]: Doesn’t the First Amendment protect things that are yucky?

A: It does - if you want to pay for it with your own money. Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t. support religion. We shouldn’t support vicious attacks on religion either. If they did it on private property, I would equally oppose it. I would speak out against it because I think it’s disgusting. But I would have to - and I would - provide the police, provide the pavement, provide all the things that the First Amendment requires.

Q: Suppose, instead of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, splattered with excrement, it was a portrait of Martin Luther King.

A: I don’t think the museum ever would have done it. The museum board would have been too sensitive to the concerns of the minority of people that would be offended by this.. Catholic bashing goes down a little easier than some of the other things that might be done.

Source: “This Week” (ABC News with Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts) Oct 3, 1999

No taxpayer dollars for offensive art

I think [the “Sensation”] exhibit, beyond even the desecration of the Virgin Mary, is a horrible exhibit. There’s a pedophile that is glorified with the fingerprints of the children that the pedophile attacked. There are pigs in formaldehyde that are dissected. There’s are displays of other things involving crimes of violence. If you want to do this privately, you have every right to do it. But here you’re taking hard-earned taxpayer dollars and using it to subsidize this project.
Source: ABC News’ “This Week” Oct 3, 1999

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for policy papers on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Rudy Giuliani.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Civil Rights in The Forum.
Other candidates on Civil Rights: Rudy Giuliani on other issues:
NY Gubernatorial:
George Pataki
NY Senatorial:
Abe Hirschfeld
Al D'Amato
Charles Schumer
Hillary Clinton
Marilyn O'Grady
Michael Benjamin
Pat Moynihan

Presidential:
George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AL)Shelby v.Sowell
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Gray v.Jones
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Schaffer
(CT)Dodd v.Masullo
(FL)Deutsch v.Martinez v.McCollum
(GA)Buckley v.Collins v.Isakson v.Majette
(HI)Inouye
(IA)Grassley v.Northrop v.Small
(ID)Crapo
(IL)Fitzgerald v.Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KS)Brownback
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Hirschfeld v.O'Grady v.Schumer
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Broussard v.King v.Wyden
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter
(SC)Beasley v.DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Neumann
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
HouseMatch
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes