THE SPINE SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I've introduced Andrew G. Bostom before, once on The Plank and the last time here on The Spine. Bostom is continuing his scrutiny of recent papal pontifications (yes, I guess the word comes from "pontiff") about Islam and the hyper-hysterical reactions in the Muslim world. Anyway, here is another of Bostom's articles:
The ultimate source of the convulsive reaction to the Pope's speech is the Islamic belief that spiritually and physically debauched infidels have no right to express opinions--least of all negative opinions--regarding Islam's sacred text, the Koran, the Muslim prophet, Muhammad (Ecce Homo Arabicus), or the sacred Islamic Law (Shari'a), which includes the permanent institution of jihad war. ...
The global Muslim reactions to both the Danish cartoons, and the Pope's Regensburg lecture manifest these same motifs of dehumanizing infidel hatred, replete with the collective punishment of non-Muslim societies and religious institutions for their modern "blasphemies". When a single Danish newspaper published nondescript cartoons of Muhammad, Danish embassies were destroyed, and Danish goods boycotted in Muslim countries. Similarly, the Pope's mere quotation of a late 14th century Muslim-Christian polemic has incited violent attacks (including at least two murders) directed at Christians, and their institutions in Islamic societies.
You can read the rest of the article here.
5 comments
What we need is another work by Andres Serrano, the photographer whose "Piss Christ" (1987) caused hairs to sprout simultaneously up about ten million American butts. I'm thinking a publically displayed shot of a statue of Muhammad submerged in Serrano's own urine might be the war on terror's other shoe dropping. Front and center at the '08 Whitney Biennial? Some nice ripe blashemy might spur our enemies to overplay their hands--the insult that provokes the head-butt that draws the red card. Because, bottom line, aren't we claiming as proponents of Western Civilization that the sanctity of "Piss Christ" and the rest of its cohort (e.g. "Piss Muhammad") is more important that the sanctity of Christ and the rest of his? Perhaps when the world either formally accepts or rejects the above claim, which as far as I can determine it has yet to do, the winner of the war on terror will be a foregone conclusion.
- williamyard
September 25, 2006 at 12:49pm
Artists like to be "subsversive" and "transgressive" only when it's really safe. Serrano could be pretty sure that fervent Christians weren't going stab him while he was riding his bike or bomb the gallery where "Piss Christ" was showing. I was thinking that a picture of the burning WTC made up of little portraits of Muhammad might be the thing. But would any public gallery or musuem put it on display?
- CJoseph
September 25, 2006 at 1:13pm
when he made the documentary about Muslim women knew it wasn't safe, and yet he still did it and paid with his life. That documentary needed to be made because it contained truth yet it was not done in bad taste, I wish Hollywood would give it an Oscar on principle. Mocking Mohammed in the manner of piss christ is not "subversive", it is infantile and not even original, for that reason alone it should not be in a museum or public gallery. CJoseph, I do support the idea of your picture of the WTC but it belongs on the editorial page, or a web page.
- blackton
September 25, 2006 at 2:09pm
Well, he's one exception. Can you think of any others? Rushdie, perhaps? I agree that Van Gogh deserves a memorial Oscar.
- CJoseph
September 25, 2006 at 4:11pm
From Tim Garton Ash's latest piece in nybooks.com: [Van Gogh killer Mohammed Bouyeri] posted Islamist tracts on the Web and watched videos of foreign infidels in the Middle East having their throats cut by holy warriors. According to a Dutch source cited by Buruma, Bouyeri's friend Nouredine passed his wedding night with his bride on a mattress in the future assassin's apartment, watching infidels being slaughtered As I say, not "fascists" but a members of a Death Cult. There is no tit-for-tat strategy that will bring them to their senses because there simply is no equivalence of logic or behavior between the Death Cultists and normal people who prefer life to death.
- teplukhin
September 25, 2006 at 6:35pm