As a matter of free speech, I have no problem with a depiction of Mohammed on the front cover of Charlie Hebdo, even though a depiction of him in pictorial form is massively offensive to them.
As well, the Piss Christ is massively offensive to Christians.
Will society accept both? That is what I am asking, and all I am asking.
My comment was not directed at you personally, I could have stated things better, but as a general comment to our society that has no qualms in accepting derision of peaceful religions and their icons but grovels in fear of applying the standards to the religion and icons muslims.
A depiction that only serves to be offensive is in no way equivalent to a depiction, that although it may be offensive, makes a point.
“As well, the Piss Christ is massively offensive to Christians.”
It was offensive because taxpayer monies, Christian monies, were used to pay for it. Want to make something offensive? Pay for it yourself. When taxpayers monies are used for art the art must represent all that were taxed to pay for it.