This looks like a job for:
RAGE BOY!
Posted on 11/08/2007 8:55:08 AM PST by WesternCulture
What actually happened when a Swedish newspaper published a picture of the prophet Mohammed as a dog?
The Swedish Emergency Management Agency wants to find out, and is to give funding to Örebro University to look at reaction to the controversial publication. The university will also compare the reactions around the world to what happened following a similar publication by a Danish newspaper 2 years ago, but which reached much larger proportions.
And the artist that first drew the pictures of Mohammed is taking his own look back at the controversy, by writing a musical about the events. Lars Vilks says the musical will be called ”Dogs” and compares it to other musicals such as ”Jesus Christ Superstar” and ”Cats”. Vilks insists that the publication of the pictures was important to defend the freedom of expression. Speaking to daily Dagens Nyheter, he said that it’s part of the rules of the game to criticise religion and politics.
Will they do a comparative analysis on when the picture of the Christian cross was put in a cup of urine?
“The university will also compare the reactions around the world to what happened following a similar publication by a Danish newspaper 2 years ago, but which reached much larger proportions.”
- Perhaps even fundamentalist/extremist Muslims are beginning to embrace freedom of speech and other cornerstones of democracy?
Of course, one stipulation is that they will have to study it without any actual copies of the cartoon. You know, to avoid offending anyone.
That cartoon has a “Far Side”ish feel to it. I can almost see Gary Larson sitting at his drawing table thinking of captions.....”Dang it. Which way is east? And where is the nearest hydrant?”
This is an artist? Hell I can't draw and could do better than this! Endowment for the Arts, here I come!
Lars Vilk better watch his back, I mean neck.
He insulted dogs.
I hope not. Unless you are suggesting that the Christians who protested exhibited abnormal psychological behavior as well.
The difference there is US taxpayers were REQUIRED to pay for that in violation of the separation of church and state. The same prohibition on government money being used to promote my religion also prohibits the government from slurring it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.