did not wish to see their people dividednby rehgious strife. The prime casentoday is Israel, where Orthodox Jewsnhave fought adamantly against the constructionnof a Brigham Young facilitynfor fear of Mormon missionizing.nIn religious matters the, Romansnwere a most tolerant people and accordednlegitimacy to a wide variety ofnsects, including Judaism but not Christianity.nIn the official view, Christianitynwas dangerous because of its allegedlynbizarre practices — e.g., cannibalismnand fornication — and because itntaught its converts to be bad citizensnwho would refuse to shoulder theirnobligations. The Romans were wrong.nWith few exceptions. Christians werengood Roman citizens, and their supportnwas vital to Constantine’s revitalizationnof the empire. However, if thenRomans had been correct, if Christiansnreally were no different from Santeros,nand if they really did teach what wennow call the doctrine of Civil Disobedience,nthen the Romans were obligednto stop the spread of a cult so perniciousnto civilization and social order.n(TF)nPUBLICLY FUNDED ART isncausing a stir now in Los Angeles,nwhere a mural citing (in part) thenPledge of Allegiance has drawn firenfrom a neighborhood group. The LittlenTokyo Community DevelopmentnMOVING?nrnLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, Illinoisn61054.nNamenAddress .nCitynState JZip.n8/CHRONICLESnAdvisory Committee complained thatnplacing a mural featuring the pledgenabove LA’s Littie Tokyo was, at thenvery least, insensitive to the feelings ofnJapanese-Americans who sufferednforced detention and were asked tontake loyalty oaths during World War II.nKats Kunitsugu, of the committee, toldnthe LA Times that “I thought it wasnquite a slap in the face.” Anothernmember of the neighborhood group,nAlan Furuta, said that the mural’s citingnof the pledge and its general similaritynto the American flag wouldn”bring up old wounds and feelings.”nThe artwork is all text and posesnquestions such as “WHO ISnBOUGHT AND SOLD? WHO ISnBEYOND THE LAW? WHO ISnFREE TO CHOOSE? WHO FOL­nLOWS ORDERS?” Originally, thenpledge was to be in the center of thenmural, prominently in all caps. It isnnow in smaller letters running alongnthe top and bottom of the mural’snrectangle, while the questions are innlarger type and in the center.nLA’s Museum of ContemporarynArt (MOCA), so far from ramming thenmural down Little Tokyo’s throat, immediatelynopened up discussion betweennthe artist (Barbara Kruger) andnthose angry with the proposal, andncame to the compromise. Kruger is nonRichard Serra: she has stated that she isnwilling to make further changes, ifnnecessary.nThe mural was funded in part by thenNEA and the California Arts Council,nwhich is supported by NEA as well asnstate tax money.nWhat comes immediately to mindnare the obvious objections that a runningnseries of essentially nonsensenquestions is not art, and that my federalntax dollars, levied on earnings made innIllinois, should not be decoratingndowntown Los Angeles. But if I am tonlive in a worid with federally fundednart, then in this case I must grant thatnMOCA did the right thing in respectingnthe feelings of the communityngroup. It is very distressing, however,nthat basic patriotic symbols of Americanlike the flag and the Pledge of Allegiancenare deemed offensive by at leastnsome of California’s Japanese-nAmericans. And after witnessing thenenormous stink that it took to get rid ofnthe Serra sculpture in New York, is itnonly the cynic in me that makes me asknnnif MOCA — and the artist — wouldnhave been so accommodating had thencomplaint not come from a minorityngroup that is still, 44 years later, furiousnwith its country? (KD)nTHE NEW YORK STATE publicnrestroom equality law, popularly beingnreferred to as “the potty parity act,” isnno laughing matter. Rather, it takesnaway gains achieved by inen in theirnlong struggle, starting with the establishmentnof the first public restroom, tonreceive some degree of compensationnfor past inequities. The purpose of thennew law, passed on June 21, 1989, is tonreduce the time women spend waitingnin line to use public restrooms. Beforenthe law was passed men’s rooms, asnthey should be, were better equippednthan women’s. Both had the samennumber of toilets, but men had urinalsnas well. Henceforward, both toilets andnurinals will be counted as “sanitarynfixtures.” All restrooms will contain thensame number of fixtures, which meansnthat toilets will have to be added to thenladies’ rooms.nThe blatant insensitivity to thenneeds of men perpetrated by the newnarrangement becomes glaringly evidentnfrom the merest glance at thenhistory of human elimination. For example,na recent illustrated volume, ThenVanishing American Outhouse, explainsnwhy wooden outhouses featuredna crescent moon on their doors. Originally,nit seems, a sun indicated a men’snfacility and a crescent moon one fornwomen. But, to quote The New YorknTimes Book Review of July 2, 1989,n”Since the women’s outhouses werengenerally kept in better repair than thenmen’s, more of them survived, untilnfinally the moon became the universalnouthouse trademark.” In other words,nfor the better part of American historynwomen enjoyed the superior restroomnfacilities.nWhat follows from this history ofnprivilege is clear. Men, having sufferednsevere outhouse deprivation in thenpast, were just beginning to be compensatednin the supposedly more enlightenedn20th century when, perversely,nthe New York State legislaturengave the advantage back to women.nConsider just what it was that mennsuffered in the past — and had continuednto suffer in some respects rightn