Wednesday, October 6, 2010

An Obvious Question

Please go here and read this article. 

If this were the old pedophile Mohammed depicted instead of Jesus, would there be phone calls of protest or blood and fire in the streets?


Z said...

it makes me sick to read the whole thing so I had to stop........
where's the fatwa? You're right.
Dayum, Brooke, they're catching up to us through bullying and terrorism and blood and fire in the streets while our western world is insulting the creator of the world.
With kids as indoctrinated as they are and lefties like DUcky left to their own devices and thoughts and votes....I don't see us coming out of this. We're raising wimps...who won't be able to fight

WomanHonorThyself said...

this is the should be used Brooke to uncover the flat out hypocrisy of cowtowing to Muslims!

Keads said...

I remember the government supported "art" of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Tax dollars at work there and yet very little public outrage.

It was called piss Christ.

We have come so far haven't we?

Always On Watch said...

From the link:

"This is a taxpayer-supported, public museum and it’s family-friendly," Donna Rice, another member of the city council, told the Denver Post. "This is not something the community can be proud of."

Taxpayer money???

Of course, any such disrespect toward MTP wouldn't be allowed!

Brooke said...

Z: This kind of thing at least still draws outrage. As long as there is one decent person...

Angel: Agreed.

Keads: Ah, yes. Serrano was the so-called 'artist's' name, as I recall. Ducky and I had a conversation about how that was trash. Ducky disagreed, calling the jar of whiz, and I quote, "ethereal."

I kid you not.

AOW: Isn't it amazing? When anything supporting Christianity and tax dollars come together, leftists squeal about "separation of church and state," but let something like this come down the pike and we hear not one peep from them.

And as you said, such a depiction of Mo would NEVER be permitted.


Also, from the link:

Don Surber of the Daily Mail says he wondered if Chagoya and his supporters would feel the same way if someone depicted Muhammad in the same way.

"This has been done so many times before that it is a cliche. In the artworld, such work belongs next to the Velvet Elvis and the dogs playing poker," Surber wrote in his blog. "If this ‘artist’ had any courage, he’d show Muhammad instead of Jesus. That’s cutting edge. That’s breaking new ground. That’s dangerous. That’s truly being willing to sacrifice for the sake of art."

Exactly. I couldn't have said it any better.

Of course, the 'artist' wouldn't dare. I'm sure he doesn't want to wind up like Theo van Gogh.

Steve Harkonnen said...

We live in an age where negativity, controversy, and disgust gain more money than having no attention at all.

If I were a starving artist, I too would drum up something as controversial as this.

Makes me think I should've kept my book rated xxx as it originally once was, but hey, for some unknown reason, it's currently selling very well!

USA_Admiral said...

Christians show outrage and muslims blow shit up, kill and behead others while screaming outrage.

Alligator said...

Well said USA Admiral. That is precisely why these "art" exhibits target any religion, mostly Christianity, but never mention the "religion of peace" and the fruit of sharia law. All the rhetoric (spin) these "intellectuals" put out to make such exhibitions look like an important, yet attractive and fragrant package: yet in the end all they have is a piece of dog crap with a bow and perfume sprayed on it. It's still just dog crap presented with the grace and style of junior high humor.

Brooke said...

Yes, agreed to all three of you!

Always On Watch said...

Calling your attention to THIS. You've gotta check out that link!