Conflating The Media With A Gallery Displaying "Piss Christ"?

[cali]

Piss poor critical thinking (sorry, couldn't resist). I keep seeing fallacious comparisons between the Danish cartoons and art that offends Christians. Here's one crucial difference: Purportedly responsible media outlets serve a different function than an art gallery, museum, theater or satirical magazine . Everyday, editors, including cartoon editors, sit down and make decisions about what to print and what not to print. Is this censorship? No, of course not. Would the WaPo print a cartoon of Jesus stretched out on a bed, beckoning to a small child with a lollipop, and a leer on his his face, to illustrate church sexual abuse? Comparisons of the publications of the Danish cartoons to Chris Ofila's Madonna, McNally's gay Jesus play, Serrano's piss Christ, etc., are a classic case of apples/oranges.

[papau]

1. Given no cartoon of Mohamed in bed with 9 yo wife, I do not see your point

comparisons between the Danish cartoons and art that offends Christians seems reasonable.

While responsible media outlets make decisions about what to print and what not to print, and this is not censorship, it is also not on point.

The WaPo suggested printing of a cartoon of Jesus stretched out on a bed, beckoning to a small child with a lollipop, and a leer on his his face, to illustrate church sexual abuse, would be equivalent to the cartoon of Mohamed in bed with his 9 yo wife, as per the Koran, to illustrate equivalent Muslim sexual abuse - and neither cartoon has been printed.

Comparisons of the publications of the Danish cartoons and there reception by the street to Chris Ofila's Madonna, McNally's gay Jesus play, Serrano's piss Christ, etc., are valid and indeed the street in each case was very upset. The street in the Muslim case was violent.

[cali]

2. You honestly

can't see the difference between an art gallery in Soho and the NYT? I find that surprising. Yes, you can compare the cartoons to art that offends xians, what's different is WHERE the art appears. And comparing the fictional Christ cartoon with the Mohammed turban cartoon, is right on target. In the case of the former, there's been widespread stories about sexual abuse in the church, while in the latter, there's been a minority of Muslims carrying out violent acts in the name of their religion.

[papau]

3. media stories in "Art" and cartoons elsewhere get the same distribution

A minority commit any given bad act - Priest jokes abound in the US and do not result in violence.

And the evil sex with kids is indeed a historical truth of the Koran - although some would say they took them to their bed but waited 10 years before having sex - and you can believe that if you wish. Indeed the OT has young child marriage. And the historical forced gay sex on captive kids - and "village tax kids" by muslims - the staffing of the "janissaries" - is the hate crime that the folks in the Balkans and Greece continue to have a hard time forgetting. Sex with kids appears to be an evil that does not require no religion, and does not require a specific religion.

We are talking about reaction - and there is a contrast to be made between Christians and Muslims - to what end I do not know.

In the past Christians were known to get violent, so I am not sure what is proven by today's contrast.

But there is a contrast.

[KFC]

17. Your bias is obvious

Emphasizing "widespread stories" of sexual abuse in the church, while pointing out that a minority of Muslims carry out violent acts.

Clearly, violent Muslims are a minority. I would also contend that sexual abusers in the church are in the minority. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there are "widespread stories" of Muslim violence.

[rinsd]

20. I'm sorry...

Did I miss the point where the Chrtistian art was not reproduced when stories were written on the controversy? They never showed pic of Piss Christ or the Virgin Mary smeared in dung?

"In the case of the former, there's been widespread stories about sexual abuse in the church, while in the latter, there's been a minority of Muslims carrying out violent acts in the name of their religion."

Huh? What are you saying here?

[JCMach1]

4. Art and political cartoons serve two very different

rhetorical purposes...

[papau]

5. true - but it is the reaction that is in contrast - the media distribution

of the insult is equivalent.

[killbotfactory]

13. found these on a christian site

hope the protesters don't have the internet

[eggman67]

14. What "Christian" site would that be?

Link please.

[killbotfactory]

15. on closer look

it looks more like just an anti-Islam site...

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

[papau]

16. That site per the author is an atheist site-but dedicated to Islam dumpin

Does your criticism apply to Islam or to other religions as well?


I don't believe in any religion. The very concept of God sending messengers to save us as Jesus claimed, or to be known and worshipped as Muhammad claimed is absurd.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

6. These were not printed in a top newspaper

it was a second-tier type of publication, I understand.

The issue with the crucifix in urine revolved around national funding for that artist.

There are dozens of cartoons about priest sexual abuse. Rolling Stone has Kanye West with a crown of thorns on its cover.

[cali]

7. So what if it was a second tier

newspaper? (whatever that means). I actually have less of a beef with the Jyllands-Posten printing of the cartoons (though I think it was unwise) than I do with the papers across Europe that gratuitously reprinted them in the name of solidarity and freedom of the press. As to your other points:: Yes, some of the outrage about Serrano's work had to do with government funding, but much of it didn't That doesn't account for McNally's play or Ofila's Madonna. Rolling Stone is not a news outlet. None of the cartoons re church sexual abuse, to my knowledge, feature Jesus being demeaned.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Your analogy used the Washington Post

and the paper that originally was involved in this was not one of the respected dailies in that area.

I saw a cartoon with Christ surround by children and one was placed near his lap so that from the back it looked like he was giving oral sex. And the words were a play on "Suffer the little children..."

I don't know who did it. It might have been Rall. I didn't save it.

Rolling Stone is a respected weekly with a very high circulation. It doesn't deal with straight news, but entertainment and cultural news. Very much an American icon.

Now, I agree that printing the cartoons was unwise...bad manners... insensitive. I heard a quote on TV last night..don't remember who. "The papers had a RIGHT to print the cartoons, but it was NOT RIGHT to print them."

However, I think we all have to be accountable for our actions, regardless of provocation. Difficult but necessary in order to keep civilization rolling along smoothly. Too bad we humans have such a problem with this area.

[WernhamHogg]

9. I happened to watch 5 minutes of O'Reilly

I happened to watch 5 minutes of O'Reilly last night and he was bitching about this and about how "hypocritical" he felt the media was being about this. He's upset about the way that some artists depict Jesus...but IIRC, he was pretty supportive of Mel Gibson's artistic depiction of Jesus which was basically an over-hyped slasher flick... :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. You have a bit of a point

which is why I thought the broadcast by the BBC of "Jerry Springer: The Opera" in which Jesus appears in a nappy (diaper), is having his feud with Satan sorted out by Jerry Springer, and sings "OK, so I'm a bit gay" is a more applicable comparison. That was national TV, funded by public money (the TV licence fee). It produced complaints (and apparently some unspecific threats to BBC executives' families, which I condemn), but no burning buildings, or the withdrawal of ambassadors.

[cali]

11. Maybe that's a better comparison

but my point really has nothing to do with the reaction of either Muslims or Christians when confronted by offense. I condemn the violence of the Muslim mobs. I shouldn't even feel the need to express that. I still find your comparison weak. The press in democratic societies holds a unique position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. But the BBC surely qualifies as a "purportedly responsible media outlet"

which was what you were talking about.

[saltpoint]

18. The outcry against Serrano's PISS CHRIST was as imbalanced and

tyrannically absurd and censorious as the extremist Islamic response to the Danish cartoons. The difference in venues doesn't matter, at least IMO. The intent of the venue is to exhibit expression, whether Jim Dobson likes it or not, and whether a given Islamic militant likes it or not.

In instances where a newspaper or museum has exhibited objectionable material, the point is that it's not objectionable to everybody, just to those who are offended. I would suggest to Jim Dobson, for example, that he not hang a print of Serrano's PISS CHRIST, or SEMEN CHRIST, up on his goddam church.

I would by the same token suggest to Islamic extremists that they not depict their prophet in their mosques.

[rinsd]

19. Actually I think it exposes a hypocrisy on both sides

The anti-Christian/Catholic things you mention are defended vigourously as example of free expression/free speech while those offended were derided. Right wing groups were in the offended group and were ridiculous in their demnds of retration/cancellation etc.

The Danish cartoons are ripped as incredibly insensitive, irresponsible and possibly as a provocation. People who advocate free speech are derided. Some on the left seem to be doing the former. Some even when the defended the anti-Christian stuff. This of course also exposes RW hypocrisy because suddenly they are all about free expression.

What are you arguing here? That insults to Christianity are okay because they occured in more of a cocoon? Because much like the Danish cartoons, the controversey spread exposure far and wide.

It's not apples and oranges but maybe golden apples and machintosh.

Perhaps the Arab media caricatures of Jews over the years would be more applicable?