MCNAUGHTON ART GIVEAWAY!!!

YES!, we’re doing it again.  In appreciation to our best fans we are giving away some of our most popular prints.  In order to enter this contest only two things are required…

First… Be a new or existing “FOLLOWER” on the MCNAUGHTON BLOG.  Be sure to leave a comment on this page telling me which is your favorite McNaughton painting and why, and include your real name (blog names can be hard to identify for purposes of naming a winner!)

Second…  Write me a note on my Facebook page telling me which print you would like to win.

This contest will run until Thursday the 26^th and the winners will be announced Friday the ^27th!

There will be a first and second prize awarded.  Each print will be personally signed by the artist!

***FIRST PRIZE:  Choose TWO of your favorite McNaughton 10X15 prints from the following list:  One Nation Under God, The Forgotten Man, Via Dolorosa, Peace is Coming, Parting the Veil, Awaiting the Command.

***SECOND PRIZE:  Choose ONE of your favorite McNaughton 10X15 prints from the same list as above. (To view images visit the photos on Facebook)


GOOD LUCK!!!

The Next Nineteen Months

I talk a lot about the Constitution and the importance of conservative values, but I rarely delve into the fray of politics.  Even my painting “The Forgotten Man” is more about principle than politics.  I watch what is happening and I hope with all my heart that someone will come along that will have what it takes to turn this country around…both economically and morally.  But that would be naïve to expect that a single person could do this.  The moral integrity required to save our country will not come from a single president.  Actually, I think the president we elect is a reflection of our country’s moral situation.  When Americans are apathetic about freedom and vote for a candidate by how much the government will give them; that is a dangerous road.  

What will the next couple of years bring us?  Although President Obama is now low in the polling numbers for popularity, he still has a fair chance to be reelected in 2012.  Clinton faced a similar problem as he prepared to run for his second term.  As you know, I lot of the outcome of the 2012 Election will be determined by how well the Republicans can rally behind a single candidate.  This candidate will have to speak to the heart and soul of the American people.  He must be a conservative, not a moderate like John McKane.  

As I look at the coming nineteen months leading up to this crucial election, I feel that my purpose as an artist will be to wake up as many people to our situation as possible.   Most people are visual learners and I want to express what I believe in a way that is clear and unmistakable.  As Americans, we must protect our liberties as defined in the Constitution and make the kind of responsible choices that will guarantee a future for our children and grandchildren. 

May God help us as we strive to rebuild this country.

McNaughton Responds to Questions Concerning Paintings

Yesterday I received a thoughtful post on my Facebook from a man who had sincere questions regarding the intentions of my paintings. I felt that I wanted to respond because I think his words reflect many who have opposing views to “One Nation Under God” and “The Forgotten man.” I think it is always a good thing to have a reasonable discussion without digressing to name calling which often occurs on both sides. I have written my responses in grey text :


Austin Baird

Jon - I appreciate your explanation. I don't at all believe that you're being racist by singling out Obama. I think that people who accuse others of disliking Obama for racist reasons are too lazy to come up with real arguments. I think it's insulting to accuse you of being racist. Let me make sure I understand you - your "ranking" of the presidents isn't based on constitutionality of their actions but instead on how their actions enlarged the government? If that's the case then I have three questions. 


1.) Do you believe that your ranking of the presidents is entirely accurate or fair? I mentioned earlier that it's not intellectually acceptable to espouse political opinions without having backed them up factually. I clearly show the information about each president on my website. http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379National debt actually had its biggest increase under Reagan. I don't want to turn this into a debate, but if anyone would like those statistics I will gladly send them your way. The point of my question is that your rankings seem to be based more on what the perception of the presidents is (like that Reagan cut spending, which is not backed up by facts) than what the reality is. I never said I was ranking the presidents. My thoughts when I chose where to place the presidents was to put in a prominent place on the right side some of the presidents who had a significant part in expanding the role of the federal government, they would be clapping. I placed G.W. Bush next to Obama because he was guilty as well. I put Wilson between FDR and TR, but didn’t have room to show him clapping. There are a few others like LBJ and Nixon that I’m not crazy about. It’s not so cut and dry. Many people want to think I actually lined them all up based on politics. Not so. I put prominent presidents closer to the front. I wanted to paint the question, “If the presidents of the past could speak to us today, what would they say?”


I know that Reagan raised the debt considerably. Under Reagan the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $900 billion to $3 trillion. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency. But much of the federal deficit increases were due to military spending, which eventually led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Many of Reagan’s fiscal policies led to American prosperity well into the next century. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981. … The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income.” This doesn’t mean I think Reagan was perfect. He also unconstitutionally ratified the Salt II Treaty before having Congressional approval. As for as the debt, remember G. W. Bush raised the debt more than Reagan, and Obama is on track to outdo them all! My painting never made the statement that the other presidents were not guilty. Many have made poor decisions.

2.) The above question stems from the one I ask now, which is the question that I would most like to hear your response to. In some of your other writing (notably on the BYU Bookstore issue) you make much of the fact that "liberal ideas" have led to your painting being taken down and you mention several times that these liberal ideas are problems that need to be dealt with. As I said above, I have no interest in debating with you and so I won't bring up the numerous General Authorities who have been Democrats or had liberal ideas. Your work (meaning all of your paintings and everything that you have said about them) is taken as a whole by your fans and so the ideas espoused in one work (how customarily "liberal" professions are in the darkness in "One Nation Under God") or written by you directly (your blog post on the Bookstore issue) are inseparable from your other works (The Forgotten Man). Do you intend for the viewers to take away from your painting that liberal = bad? That's an idea you've shared numerous times and if it's not one that you intend to convey in this painting, how do you suggest that your fans separate the concepts? I have stated countless times that I don’t want to class “liberals” as bad simply because its not my place to say what is in their heart. What I have repeatedly said is that they are “confused.” There are many definitions of liberal. I am speaking of those who believe that the definition of what is good or bad depends on what is acceptable by society. Liberals see things usually not as black and white, but as a moving grey target and believe they are on the higher ground because they are watching out for the oppressed and down trodden. It is a different paradigm than the conservative American who often sees things as black and white. In my painting I take issue with abortion, the secularization of the schools, the moral denigration of the entertainment business, the liberal bias of the media, the corrupted politician to name a few. These figures represent metaphors for certain types that I believe have weakened our country. They do not represent a sweeping judgment of everyone. In the painting I have people divided to represent the division that is taking place in our country. How can anyone deny that the country is divided on these issues? On the right side the judge feels remorse and the pregnant woman has decided to keep her baby, which shows that they have a change of heart. The patriots in the background are pleading from the dust to the living Americans to change their ways and support the Constitution, which defines a limited federal government. The only people offended by this painting are those that believe in “liberal” ideologies: Never speak of God and government in the same breath, abortion is a choice, Darwinism is supreme, don’t ever judge people, don’t shove your conservative idealogy on me! They are immediately offended because they identify with the right side of the painting and feel I am judging them. Only God will judge. By the way, the painting is not political. I do not speak for Republican or Democrat. JFK stands in the painting a few heads to the left of Reagan. There are liberals and conservatives on both sides of the political aisle. Fifty years ago this painting would have hardly raised an eyebrow because liberalism was almost nonexistent in America. Today, this painting is divisive. Twenty years from now will it be offensive to show a painting that represents a traditional family with a man and woman? Just because society tolerates change should we bend on principle? My fans know what liberalism stands for and they don’t need an explanation. Only liberals need an explanation.


3.) Before I ask this last question - I should clarify that I'm a staunch libertarian. I promise you that any sort of beliefs you hold on the desirability of small government, low taxes, etc. are shared by me. My question isn't about your beliefs, but instead about the way that they're shared. The USA is fairly unique among western, industrialized societies in our libertarian leanings. Most other countries believe in a strong social safety net, often strong enough to constitute a quasi-socialist state. In these countries, most of the citizens believe in these safety nets and are the type of people who you would call liberals or socialists. Among these people are many strong LDS members. Running through your work is the implication that the type of government that God and Jesus approve of includes low taxes and as small of a government as possible. What do you say to the millions of LDS members worldwide who share your religious beliefs but who completely disagree with you politically? Do you only intend for your American fans to take away these inferences? Do you really intend for your viewers to take away what I've said, that political beliefs in big government are antithetical to the sort of government that God intends? 

I apologize for writing you such a novel, but these are questions that I've wanted to ask you for some time. If you don't feel like answering all of them, the second and third questions are the ones that I'm the most interested in. No rush on the response; I imagine that you're busy. I appreciate your participation and civility. This question seems to have more to do with political liberalism (socialism) and not the moral issues of liberalism. America is unique in that we have our Constitution, which clearly defines the extent of government’s involvement in its citizen’s lives. Over time our “republic” has morphed into a democratic socialist model and the Constitution is the only thing between us and a European form of government. As far as liberals who are Christian living in foreign countries, sure they may have a different perspective. People in different parts of the world have less freedom than us and may be perfectly fine with that. I am an American, and do not want to give away a single freedom I have. When the founders created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they were embarking on something new to the world. A government of the people, and they believed they were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Not the rights or privileges bestowed on them by Kings and Nobles. Many countries since have adopted parts of our Constitution, but it is difficult for people to remain free. Too many want to be taken care of by their government at the cost of their liberties.


I believe that the Constitution was inspired and countless Americans have believed this since our country’s inception. As LDS, we believe the words written in D&C 101:80, “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” But this is not limited to an LDS perspective. Many Christian denominations see that God has had a hand in the founding of this nation. Everyone can make their own choice as to whether that is true, but for an LDS person to deny it is to deny the doctrine of the church and that has nothing to do with politics. In my mind God’s plan is about freedom, Satan is for slavery. The more we cut away at the original intent of the Constitution the less freedom we have. In my painting “One Nation Under God” the painting makes the point that the Constitution is divinely inspired and that Americans need to make a choice. If you feel it is wrong for me to say liberalism is the source of the problem, then we cannot agree. I find it interesting that you refer to yourself as Libertarian. What kind of Libertarian are you? I will consider your points and I hope you will consider mine.

Shake You to the Core

My journey as an artist has been anything but what I expected it to be. From the time I was little I knew I wanted to paint pictures. After many years of painting only landscape paintings I had the itch to start doing more religious images. These were very satisfying to me because I could communicate through my art how I felt about Jesus Christ. When I painted “One Nation Under God”, little did I know I was about to embark on a journey that would shake me to the core.

It all started in 2008 when I decided to pray when feeling discouraged concerning what was happening in the election. I asked, “What can I do, I’m just an artist?” At that moment I saw the image in my mind for the "One Nation Under God" painting. Later I felt impressed to paint “The Forgotten Man.” This painting came after I prayed regarding the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I think that the Lord often waits for us to simply come to Him and ask the question...what should I do?

I know that these paintings can be very divisive. Some people have been angry that I would use my art to speak this way. I can't think of any person who has ever stood up for what was right that did not offend others. This life is not a popularity contest.

As an artist, I feel that I have no stronger medium to communicate my thoughts and feelings about what is happening in this country than my paintings. Right now our country is divided on many issues and I imagine this will continue to become more profound over time. May we remember to pray and ask the Lord to inspire us as to what we can do. But remember, sometimes the answer will shake you to the very core!

My Reflections Regarding BYU Removing "One Nation Under God"

The last few weeks have been both emotional and contemplative for me as I have watched the public respond to the removal of all my artwork from the BYU Bookstore. I want to take a few moments and walk through my emotions in regards to going public with this issue.

When I made the decision to pull the rest of my art from the BYU Bookstore, I felt like I was about to say goodbye to an old friend. I figured that I could either remove the rest of my art and say nothing, or I could let the public know why they would no longer see me at Women’s Conference, BYU Education Week, etc. I prayerfully considered what I was doing and felt good about the decision.

I began by posting on my blog and Facebook about what happened at BYU and it didn’t take long before many began to react to the news. Many of the major papers in Utah weighed in on the story. Soon, the news grew outside of our state as many expressed astonishment at BYU for rejecting a “conservative” image such as this.

When I made my decision to go public I knew that I would pay a heavy price. Even without the One Nation Under God, I sell a significant amount of art at BYU. I expect to lose thousands of dollars in annual sales for this decision. I knew that BYU would probably be praised by the rest of the country for rejecting my painting. (If you read any of the comments from the Salt Lake Tribune or Huffington Post article you can see that.) In short, I knew I would be a very unpopular guy for drawing attention to this issue. (But when has popularity ever been a factor in doing the right thing.)

My only regret over the last two weeks is the number of people that have taken this issue out of context. Some have condemned BYU as a whole, and I don’t feel this way. My issue is with only a couple of individuals.

I hope people will remember that even if BYU feels a need to remain politically neutral, they must stand firm on conservative principles that make us a moral and righteous people. The painting, “One Nation Under God” is not meant to be politically correct. It does not endorse a political party. It only asks the viewer to consider what is at stake in our country. Every American should decide whether they will support our Constitution which defines a limited federal government. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If anything good comes from all this I hope it will be to draw attention to the question…will you STAND FOR TRUTH or be caught up in the tide of political correctness that is sweeping over this nation?

BYU Professor Writes Letter About Censored Painting

The BYU Bookstore has sent a form letter in response to anyone’s inquiry regarding the removal of "One Nation Under God." This particular professor at BYU wrote an interesting letter to the Bookstore and made some excellent points. Although the painting, “One Nation Under God” is meant to be for all Christians, it has special meaning to those who are Mormon because of our belief that the Constitution is divinely inspired.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Richardson [mailto:mnarich@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:40 AM
To: Web Team
Subject: "One Nation Under God" [from unicomm.byu.edu/contactus form]

I am a BYU alumnus (B.S. and Ph.D.) and faculty member who is puzzled by hearing recently that Jon McNaughton's "One Nation Under God" will no longer be sold at the BYU bookstore. I'm not writing in protest, but to seek understanding. I felt that this painting was an interesting symbolic representation of D&C 101:80, which indicates that the Lord himself established the Constitution by the hands of wise men he raised up for that purpose. The painting also symbolically represents other doctrinal and prophetic statements.

Although there are elements of the painting, primarily represented by the foreground figures, that appear to lean politically conservative, there is no dearth of both conservative and liberal material available at the Bookstore in other forms of media. For example, "The 5000 Year Leap," depicted in the painting and consonant with the painting's message, was written by a former BYU religion professor and I believe can still be purchased at the BYU bookstore alongside other works of the same author such as "The Magesty of God's Law: It's coming to America" and "The Cleansing of America" (On the back cover: "Preparing America for the Kingdom of God"). Other controversial titles available at the bookstore include: "The God Strategy: How religion became a political weapon in America," "Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the triumph of ignorance," "BS (Blowing Smoke): Why the Right keeps serving up whack-job fantasies about the plot to euthanize grandma, outlaw Christmas, and turn Junior into a raging homosexual," "Republican Gomorrah," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death by Liberalism," "Obama Zombies," etc.

It's seems that print media has a privileged status at the bookstore regarding expression of controversial ideas. If a similar balance is not maintained in visual media, is it the fault of a particular artist (who is also a BYU alumnus with a long record of sales at the bookstore), the fault of the bookstore, or the fault of the market/customers?

With all that said, what in the painting is particularly offensive or even controversial given doctrinal statements about both the divine and diabolical elements at war in America? Is it the judge who represents rulings that may be problematic for the Constitution (which usually divide not only the Supreme Court but also the American public, and which division itself may threaten national unity "under God")? Is it the college professor who represents the documented secularization of American education? Is it the woman considering abortion, who appears not only to be of two minds herself, but also seems to represent a divided America? Where, specifically, does this painting promote a political ideology that is dissonant with LDS or even general Christian beliefs? Where does it promote or denigrate a specific political party?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Web Team
To: Mike Richardson
Subject: RE: "One Nation Under God" [from unicomm.byu.edu/contactus form]
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:58:43 -0600

Hello,

Thank you for your message regarding Jon McNaughton and his decision not to have his art sold at the Bookstore. As is true with most of our vendors, the Bookstore purchases artwork and sells it to its customers. It is the Bookstore's prerogative to determine what is purchased. It may be helpful for you to know that the Bookstore focuses on religious art and adheres to a school policy of political neutrality.

Thanks,
Wendy
BYU Web Team


Wendy,

Thank you for the clarification regarding the bookstore's focus on religious art. It would also be helpful if you responded to the final paragraph of my last message. My understanding is that McNaughton decided not to sell his other artwork at the bookstore after a decision was made by the bookstore to no longer sell "One Nation Under God," which had been available at the bookstore for quite some time. At one time the painting warranted its own prominent display. My main question is, what in the painting is particularly partisan? Or what in the painting goes against or beyond any public statements leaders of the LDS Church have made regarding political issues such as Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Oaks), the secularization of education (e.g. Benson), or unnecessary abortion (many)? If it is the "5000 year leap" that is problematic, that book is a product of a former BYU religious educator, whose works continue to be available at the bookstore, and who has been publicly eulogized by LDS leaders (e.g. Monson). The painting is clearly religious, and if it expresses political ideas, its politics haven't changed in the time it has been sold at the bookstore. Have the bookstore's politics changed?

Again, my intent is to simply understand the reason behind this decision.

Mike



(Later Mike wrote the following)

Another thought I had after I sent the last message is that the issues you depicted were religious long before they were politicized. The freedoms guaranteed by the constitution have roots at least as old as the Protestant Reformation, and perhaps as old as the birth of Christianity itself (e.g. "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's"). The religious issues surrounding abortion existed long before Roe v. Wade, and tensions between religion and secularism pre-date our nation's founding.

So my question is, when religious issues are later politicized, must religious expressions on these issues suddenly cease? For example, marriage, an ancient religious tradition has become politicized of late. Will paintings depicting traditional marriage be banned? Or must they be balanced by paintings that depict non-traditional unions in a positive light? And if some political movement aims at taking the right of religions to perform marriages or adoptions, must artistic expressions supportive of religion's role in the family be removed (e.g. pictures of temples, traditional families, etc.)?

The issues you've depicted should be "safe" in a BYU context because Church leaders have spoken publicly about them already. As I've suggested in my e-mails, I also question whether the views you expressed are necessarily partisan. I know both democrats and republicans who would say religious rights have been hampered by the Supreme Court, both democrats and republicans who oppose abortion (even pro-choice people tend to say they are not pro-abortion, only pro-choice--and you've depicted the woman as though she is in the process of choosing), and both democrats and republicans who admit that education has become secularized. They may differ about the solutions, but few would argue that there are no problems regarding these issues. These issues have unquestionably divided the nation, and thus threaten unity under God or under ANY name. There are also both democrats and republicans who think the constitution is an inspired document. If one party favors these views more than the other that doesn't make a stance on these views inherently anti-republican, or anti-democrat. The issues are the issues and not necessarily linked to the parties. So the bookstore can be politically neutral regarding parties and still sell your painting, but do they really want to argue that they are neutral regarding religious ideas that have lately become politicized? There's a can of worms...

BYU Censors Artwork for Being Too Conservative

This is a sad day for me to have to write this.  I am a graduate of BYU and have many friends that work at the university.  After recent events I had to let the public know why I have chosen to pull all my art from the BYU Bookstore.


My letter sent to the BYU Daily Universe:

I have a simple question for BYU…what in the heck is going on over there?!  I am an artist who has sold his work at the BYU Bookstore for many years.  But in light of recent events, I cannot in good conscious show my art there any longer.

A couple of years ago I decided to paint a picture that takes a stand for something that matters to me and to many Americans.  The title of the picture is “One Nation Under God.” It depicts Christ standing among many patriots of the past while holding the US Constitution.

Just as our country is divided now on the issues, so goes this painting.  It has been extremely popular at the BYU Bookstore, but despite its success, it was pulled from the store recently because the Vice President over the Bookstore was “uncomfortable” with the painting.  It was actually pulled down last November, but was put back up immediately after Channel Two News showed up suddenly to do a story on possible censorship at BYU.  Why is this painting, which is supported by church doctrine, (D&C 101:80) such a taboo image to display at BYU?  Why censor a painting like this?  Is it pornographic? Does it incite civil unrest? No.  Go look around the bookstore, you’ll find far more provocative political books than my paintings.  The problem in our country today is that many Americans won’t stand up for something if it makes them “uncomfortable.”

Events leading to the censorship of One Nation Under God at the BYU Bookstore

1.    August 2010, BYU Art Department Manager, Val Ugolini, suddenly resigns over issues regarding “One Nation Under God.”

2.    Bookstore pulled down my paintings in November of 2010.  One faculty member objected to the painting, felt that it should not hang unless an alternative liberal painting also hung.

3.    Channel Two News does a story on this incident and BYU receives hundreds of phone calls and e-mails.  Dave Hunt stops Daily Universe from running a story on the incident.http://connect2utah.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=114716

4.    Private meetings held.  I am asked to not talk with the press, they claim all was a misunderstanding, apologies given and good faith agreement offered. All was good again.  (BYU Bookstore Director Roger Reynolds, BYU Assistant VP Dave Hunt)

5.    Bryan Evans BYU Administrative Vice President cancels my invitation to speak at BYU OPAC Conference because he was “uncomfortable” with me presenting about One Nation Under God.

6.    Suddenly told April 18, 2011 by the BYU Bookstore managers that the “Presidential Committee” had decided back in December, weeks before the agreement with Bookstore director, to take down the One Nation Under God but had not taken action... now the picture will no longer be hung.

7.    After it is announced that art would not be hung, BYU Bookstore Director denies existence of Presidential committee and says it is a bookstore decision.  I feel that the January agreement with Bookstore Director was deceptive.

8.    April 21,2011, Jon McNaughton decides to pull out the rest of his artwork due to lack of trust with BYU Bookstore and the BYU Administration.

Click here to view the painting: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353

I sent President Samuelson the following letter after my invitation to speak at the BYU OPAC Conference last March was cancelled:

“Has Liberalism so infected this university that speakers can be invited to speak about the truths of Darwinism, but a simple artist who wishes to speak about the Constitution and its importance in America is too controversial?   I am very troubled and would appreciate an explanation.”

His response included, “Consequently, they have concluded that their conference is not the proper forum for such a presentation and they have the support of the BYU administration. While we believe your accusations about “Liberalism” at BYU are unfounded and unsupported in fact, (emphasis added)

Although BYU is undoubtedly a conservative school to deny any Liberalism exists is astonishing.  Go to the following links:

Darwinism Conference at BYU: http://sciencebysteve.net/?p=654

BYU CollegeDemocrats http://byudemocrats.org/

BYU professor Bill Bradshaw on the Biological Origins of homosexuality http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

A BYU Student blogs about her experience in a lecture on Evolution in a BYU class:http://godlessatbyu.blogspot.com/2010/10/evolution-debate-at-byu.html

Personally, I think that a university like BYU should discuss all ideas as long as they don’t go against anything contrary to the honor code.  But to deny that Liberalism exists at BYU is not true.  

I believe that the source of the censoring of my painting ONUG is that BYU does not want to offend the liberals on campus.  Why is it that the complaints of a few angry liberals determine what the rest are allowed to look at?  Is this Washington D.C. or BYU?