NSFW What do you think of this "Performance art" piece?

People are entitled to be just as tasteless as they please. If the Prophet or Virgin are offended, we should leave it to the 2 of THEM to smite the offenders. After all if these holy folks choose not to intervene personally, then what business have we second guessing them?

I think it’s tacky and gross, at least as you’ve described it. But, I’m glad to live in a country where it’s legal. Lots of people say and do things that I disagree with or think are offensive, that’s a part of free expression and as an artist, I am especially inclined to support the creative freedom of other artists. Now, would I pay to see this? Hell no.

It’s a double standard, Exotic religions like Islam, Judaism and Buddhism are protected from even criticizing, much less offending. Religions familiar to us, like Christianity, is freely offended and insulted with no consequences.

Mentality of a trash.

I have gotten the impression that most of the people at those pro-life protests, are anywhere from a little off,to batshit crazy. This doesn’t surprise me.

It also seems that shock value is just about the only tool they have…

^ I thought it was done by the pro-choice.
Saying stuff like “aborting patriarchy and forsed heterosexuality” and insulting religion doesn’t seem like something the pro-life would do.

Um, well, I take part in Draw Muhammad Day every year so…

Sounds awesome.

What does Muhammad look like @Seek ? I don’t think I’ve ever really seen an image.

Tasteless, no better than the pro lifers putting up their displays of aborted fetuses.

I don’t think much of it. The event took place in Tucuman, Argentina on 13 March and ‘went viral’ only because it was shocking and outrageous. I wouldn’t consider it art and I’m not sure what the point of it was.

@Sneki95 . Yeah. I might have misread the question.

They’re exercising their civil liberties. Bad taste is not illegal.

It’s the same principle that lets Westboro Baptist Church peddle their hyperreligious crap at funerals, and the same principle that lets anti-abortion people show pictures of dead fetuses.

They think it’s making some sort of a point.

I don’t see it as art; I think it’s gross, as you described it. But it’s not illegal to be ugly and tasteless.

Remember a couple years ago, there was the “Piss Christ” controversy? – Piss Christ was a photo exhibition that showed, among other things, a crucifix in a cup of urine.

The art didn’t appeal to me, but it’s the artist’s creation, and not mine. What he did was utterly legal.

We, as society, don’t have any authority to tell an artist what art is.

It is only “wrong to draw the Prophet” in Islam. It’s not wrong in Islam to criticize every other religion on the planet, as islamacists believe that all other religions are not just inferior, but wrong and evil.

@SergeantQueen It probably would have been worth mentioning in the OP that this happened in Argentina, as @flutherother later told us. Argentina is going through a huge political fight over abortion right now, so this is as much a political protest as an artistic statement. And the reason it is so over the top is that the local churches has been trying to get the government to infringe on women’s free speech rights to even talk about the issue. Viewed in this light, the whole thing makes a bit more sense.

And by the way, it’s not wrong for people to draw Muhammed. Even the Islamic religion says it’s only wrong for Muslims to portray him. That was never the reason for the Danish protests, even if that’s how the Western media watered it down for our consumption. The cartoons—which didn’t just portray Muhammed, but depicted him as a terrorist—were really just the last straw for a group of people living in a country where they were ostracized and ghettoized. Small wonder it turned violent.

@CWOTUS That’s not actually true. The Quran declares several other Mediterranean religious groups to be Islamic brethren (the so-called “people of the book”). This explicitly includes Jews, Christians, and Sabians, and has at times been expanded to include Buddhists, Hindus, and Zoroastrians.

I wasn’t aware this took place in Argentina. The article said New york

@SergeantQueen If you take something form a source, it’s always helpful if you cna link us to the article so that we can read it and decipher it for ourselves. @JeSuisRickSpringfield‘s explanation lends much needed context. Critical thinking and analysis skills are crucial to develop as we move through the world.

Last time I linked an article I got auto-banned by Fluther.
Not sure if I was banned because of the link, but that’s the last thing I posted before I was banned.
I apologize for not reading deeper. It would’ve helped me to know it wasn’t in America too

I don’t know what happened to you but people often link to articles as part of a question. However, the bigger learning is to try to read more deeply yourself or even look for a second source before making a judgment. I’m a reference librarian at a community college and these are skills we are trying to teach.

If it’s wrong for someone to draw Islam’s prophet because it’s against that religion, why can these women perform this offensive act?
Different moral codes.
One moral code is not the other.
Or, they could both be true in a moral code that condemned one but not the other.

It being “wrong for someone to dram Islam’s prophet because it’s against that religion” is only valid in moral codes that align with that religion’s proscription. Mainly Islamic moral codes, legal codes of Islamic countries.

Now, there could also be a moral code where it were wrong to seriously offend anyone else’s moral code. People following that code would condemn both things.

There could also be (and there are) people who align more with one of those two religions and feel the other is in great need of eye-opening criticism and humility, and so might endorse one act but not the other.

In modern Western countries, particularly in the USA, there is a value of freedom of expression that is held higher than religious codes, so both drawing whatever and acting out whatever are generally allowed and even considered healthy and/or artistic expressions, or just “I don’t agree with it or enjoy it and it may even be annoying, but I’ll fight to protect everyone’s right to be able to express themselves as they see fit.”

Moral codes are mostly not objective nor universal, so the answers to “why?” are many and only meaningful within one moral code, and could be just about anything.

I know it’s not technically against any religion, but it’s offensive nonetheless. I am not religious in any sort of way, and I find this to be pretty offensive. Some people are praising it, saying it’s “aborting the patriarchy and forced heterosexuality” Thoughts?
I understand what they’re expressing, and I think it’s actually quite clever and worthwhile as art and commentary and an attempt to express some things. Art and expression that dares to explore taboos can be very interesting and lead to new insights and perspectives on connections we might not have considered.

Personally, in my moral code, I take it as a pointed counterpoint to the Christian message where they take their singular immaculate conception and resurrection and their glorification of their pure divine god child (all of which were appropriated and warped from earlier religions, though many Christians seem to act like it’s their religion’s own original idea and literally true) as something that should supercede all other religions and which has lead to patriarchal religion with little spirituality or ancestral connection, and which vilifies non-heterosexuals (and others). So, I’m not offended at all, and I think it sounds pretty great. Sounds like it has content, passion, and thought. I think most of the sloppy Christians ought to see offensive stuff like that, and I hope some of them realize how offensive their own pervasive Christian blather has been to the rest of the world, and not just the “reach your hands in your wallet and give it all to the Lord” obvious awfulness.

I just want to say in response to someone above – as a Buddhist I say criticise Buddhism all you want. Criticise it, mock it, draw pictures of the Buddha with a Hitler mustache, whatever. Buddhists don’t care.

(Matter of fact we have a saying: if you meet the Buddha along the road, kill him.)

It’s in poor taste IMO but we have a First Amendment for a reason. I’d prefer not to see such things or take part in them, but if others want to, they can have at it.

People need to learn to live and let live to a certain extent.

@LeavesNoTrace Again, this didn’t happen in the United States. It happened in Argentina.