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.
8 Comments for “Gays and Global Culture War”
posted by Bobby on
“(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.
posted by another steve on
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!
posted by Bobby on
Some say Mohammed was a pedophile because he married 11 year old girls. Perhaps the artist should depict him as that.
posted by Rob on
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.
posted by Marcus on
“(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.
posted by Bobby on
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.
posted by Craig2 on
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
posted by David Benkof on
Oy. This is now the second time that Stephen Miller has made up an opinion about what I believe, that I don’t, indeed believe.
The first time he called me an “ex-gay activist” and a “Jewish fundamentalist” and a Biblical “literalist,” though I am demonstrably none of the three. I found his characterization so close to libel that I complained to his editor and the defamatory characterizations were removed.
Now I run across this comment: “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.”
I just don’t have the energy to keep asking IGF to correct Miller’s malicious fantasies about me. But for the record, no form of Judaism, Orthodox or other, prohibits homosexuality. Some kinds of same-sex intimacy are prohibited, as are same-sex marriages. But being gay is not a sin within Judaism. And I’ve stated so publicly – I wrote at exgaywatch.com a few months ago that “Gay sex is incompatible with Jewish life. Male-male partnerships (although not necessarily female-female partnerships) are incompatible with Jewish life. Same-sex marriage is incompatible with Jewish life. Gay synagogues are incompatible with Jewish life.
But homosexuality? I see no evidence that a person cannot be gay or lesbian and live a fully observant life. In fact, I know several who do.”
Finally, that bit about my talking about probitions only among Orthodox Jews. Absolutely not! Jewish law does not apply only to Orthodox Jews – it applies to every Jew. And there are a handful of “Noahide laws” which apply to every human being. One of them forbids a common form of male-male intimacy, and another prohibits same-sex civil marriages among any two individuals of any faith or no faith.
If Mr. Miller continues to make up stuff about what I believe in order to make me look bad, I may start to claim on my Web site that he advocates forcing churches to perform lesbian weddings and requiring all public schools to observe “Judy Garland Day” on the anniversary of the gay icon’s birth.