6/16/15 Offensive Artwork

A
A
A

A few weeks ago, a New York socialite staged a draw Muhammad cartoon contest.  She was well within her rights to do so.  But it incited violent behavior. Leaving two Islamic fanatics dead.

It may not have been a wise choice to hold this contest.  But at least she claimed she did so on principle.

She isn’€™t the only one claiming principle regarding depictions of Muhammad.

Earlier this year, the New York Times refused to publish a photo of a historical statue of Muhammad. The statute sat atop a century-old New York courthouse alongside statutes of other historical figures, such as Confucius and Moses.  A typical person would consider it tasteful.  The paper stated it wouldn’t publish the photo as it may be deemed offensive to Muslims.

However, in 2010 the paper had no such qualms about publishing a cartoon by an Iranian Holocaust-denier.  Nor was it reluctant to publish anti-Jewish art – complete with swastika — in 2006.

Then just the other day the paper had no reservations about publishing a photo of a painting of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung.

By its actions, the New York Times doesn’€™t have any principles about not publishing religious images that some may find offensive.  Publishing anti Semitic artwork — with a swastika — and a dung-encrusted Virgin Mary suggests the paper finds offensive Jewish and Christian artwork to be fair game. 

You can follow Behind the Headlines on 
Twitter at @BehindTheHead.
You can follow Mark on 
Twitter at @MarkHyman.
Join us on our 
Facebook page.