Replies

Serrano himself has claimed that the photograph should be taken as criticism of the “billion-dollar Christ-for-profit industry”...

I take it as a celebration of the "billion-dollar defame-Christ-for-profit" industry.

I never understand the liberal criteria for viewing issues.

In the case of Piss Christ, liberals tell us we have to be tolerant ,etc. and that it doesn’t matter if Christians are deeply offended. We’re lectured about freedom of speech and other issues if Christians find offense at Piss Christ.

But in the case of the stupid Mohammed video or Mohammed comics, we’re supposed to bend over backwards to show that we have deep respect and reverence for the beliefs of another religion. We’re supposed to bend over backwards to avoid offending adherents of a certain religion. In such cases, issues of freedom of speech are said not to matter. It’s all about avoiding offending someone’s religious beliefs.

So which is it liberals? Are we permitted virtually unlimited freedom of speech so that we can offend religion, or not?? Are we supposed to avoid offending religion, or not? What are the criteria????

You are certainly free to take it as the celebration you mention but by doing so you clearly ignore the stated intent of the artist. When you substitute the artists intent for a manufactured one you choose to be offended.

Sister Wendy Beckett, a world famed art critic and a Carmelite nun, gave the work a fantastic and thought provoking critique that you might look up.