Gays and Global Culture War
May 6, 2008
An Iranian feminist artist who goes by the alias Sooreh Hera, living in exile in the Netherlands, said she received death threats after attempting to show her series of homoerotic photographs that include models depicted wearing masks of the Prophet Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, reports Fox News.
Hera said the photo exhibit is meant as a statement regarding Islam's stance on homosexuality.
A couple of thoughts: (1) It's counter-productive to think that provocative homoerotic depictions of Mohammed are going to accomplish anything but inflame the vehemence of conservative Islamic believers, just as homoerotic portrayals of Jesus and "the beloved disciple" only inflame the anger of conservative Christians. (2) However, if taxpayers' money isn't directly involved, artists most certainly have a right to create whatever depictions of religious figures they wish. And others have a right to criticize them for it. (3) It may well be true that in the West artists have an easier time with depictions that conservative Christians consider blasphemous than with the real risk of murder they face if they depict Mohammed in a way that conservative Muslims consider blasphemous. (4) Would Fox News have covered this story in the same way ("Iranian Artist Fights to Have Muhammad Art Displayed in Dutch Museums") if it had involved homoerotic portrayals of Jesus and John?
Note: The blog post on former gay activist David Benkof's defense of Orthodox Judaism's prohibition of homosexuality (among Orthodox Jews) has now moved off the home page. If you'd care to continue the discussion, to which Benkof has enthusiastically engaged, the permalink is here.
Comments to "Gays and Global Culture War":
another steve | May 7, 2008, 5:17pm | #
Well, one difference is that Jesus and the "beloved disciple" actually has some room, scripturally, for innuendo. Not so for Mohammed and Ali - that's really nothing but being provocative and in your face. Not sure what's achieved by rattling such a hornet's nest!
Bobby | May 7, 2008, 11:05pm | #
Some say Mohammed was a pedophile because he married 11 year old girls. Perhaps the artist should depict him as that.
Rob | May 9, 2008, 4:25am | #
Some say Mohammed was a pedophile because he married 11 year old girls. Perhaps the artist should depict him as that.
It's already been done on the net. Aisha was nine when he consummated the marriage. He also married a Jewish woman on the same day he massacred her tribe and killed her father.
Marcus | May 9, 2008, 12:15pm | #
"(1) It's counter-productive to think that provocative homoerotic depictions of Mohammed are going to accomplish anything but inflame the vehemence of conservative Islamic believers"
Since this online discussion can hardly be characterized as "the vehemence of conservative Islamic believers," your post is proved wrong in the writing of it.
Bobby | May 9, 2008, 11:35pm | #
Didn't know that, Rob, thanks for the info.
I think provoking fanatical Muslims is an excellent idea. It's shock therapy, it is the duty of every freedom lover to help this people get used to the 21st century.
Craig2 | May 10, 2008, 9:32pm | #
No, sorry. There was pronounced misbehaviour like aggression against police officers, attempted vandalism etc when the local Catholic Right protested against exhibitions in New Zealand and Australia that depicted Tanya Kovats' "Virgin in a Condom" (UK) and Andre
Serrano's "Piss Christ" respectively.
When it comes to a contest between freedom of expression and specific religious viewpoints, though, free speech must be paramount. We dare not engage in self-censorship...
whether that applies to depictions of *any* religious figure.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Bobby | May 7, 2008, 5:12pm | #
"(4) Would Fox News have covered this story in the same way ("Iranian Artist Fights to Have Muhammad Art Displayed in Dutch Museums") if it had involved homoerotic portrayals of Jesus and John?"
---Sure, if it's the hard news segments, they just give you the facts. If it's the opinion programs, they usually interview someone on the left and someone on the right. The difference is that while ABC andNBC will not interview an evangelical offending by the homosexualization of Jesus and John, Fox will, and they should.
I believe in artistic freedom, but not with my tax dollars. Here in South Beach I saw an art display of two neo-nazis french kissing each other and then proceeding to get naked. While it was somewhat sexy, that disgusting piece of work should not be funded by taxpayers, and in this case, it wasn't.