from western Christians. Most of us, regardless of our religious beliefs, have been conditioned to not react violently to religious images.

think of the amount of harassment and even physical danger the LGBT people endure in this country, particularly in schools, small towns, etc.

If so, I'm not aware of such a thing happening.

So comparing like with like is difficult.

Christians will complain about it. That's about it.

There is only one appropriate response.

in the hopes they would become violent?

most people certainly do take intent into consideration when considering others actions.

That's why there are hate crime laws, for instance.

No crime was committed here, so it doesn't matter. In addition, people are in control of their reactions, the killers are responsible for their own actions, period.

I personally don't think that hate + hate = peace, illumination, insight, tolerance

for example, anti-blasphemy laws, theocracy, homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. These ideas should not only not be tolerated, but should never be given endorsement or force of law in any nation on the planet. No pluralistic society can survive with such ideas being not only propagated, but the actions that follow encouraged.

We can tolerate people just fine, its ideas that are the problem, you want a society with free expression, free thought, and equality? Fine, but don't blame the victims of violence for the actions of those who don't know how to live in a pluralistic society.

As far as I know, no shootings or deaths or attempts as such were made when the controversial 'Piss Christ' was foisted as first amendment art, so the image above shouldn't evoke any other life threatening action. Sure, threats might fly on the interwebs, but it's doubtful any religous extremists would drive a thousand miles to try to shoot up a venue where the above image might be displayed like Dallas just saw.

on edit
The image above could cause some palpitations in the 'shroud of turin' believers

Like you said...

Latuff is an Antisemite.

Those are political cartoons against Israeli occupation and oppression.

very very very big difference.

To many others those images are pretty extreme.

BUT, nobody gets shot over them.

The Israeli Government is not the Jews!!

Claiming that Jews have supremacist beliefs, and control the US or world is classic Antisemitism.

big difference.

some Jews do have supremacist beliefs, believing they and
their relatives are particularly special to a divine Creator.

Some Muslims do, too.
Don't forget the Christians!! Lordy, lordy.

Antisemitism is very simple. It is the same as racism.
I see no difference. Hatred of gays, the same. It's a big
error for Jews or Israelis to presume they are more
special, in need of greater protection for their rights and
safety. There have been many holocausts, not only one.

But an Israeli state was created for that purpose, and
militarized beyond all reason, and now they are grabbing
land, threatening and oppressing others.

-snip-

Carlos Latuff

Carlos Latuff is a Brazilian political activist and cartoonist with a staggering portfolio of political cartoons, many of which openly express anti-Semitic themes. He advances the narrative that Israel is a unique and immutable evil in the world.[60] His work includes imagery clearly indicating moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany, which he has explicitly acknowledged to be his view.[61] The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism noted that Latuff’s “portrayal of [former] Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is reminiscent of the antisemitic caricatures…in Julius Streicher’s [Nazi publication] Der Sturmer.”[62]

Latuff’s works have been posted on various Indymedia websites and blogs as well as several newspapers and magazines such as JAMI, the magazine of the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance,[63] the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar,[64] and other formats such as anti-Israel academic Norman Finkelstein’s official website.[65] Latuff participated in the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition, and won second place for his cartoon comparing Israel’s West Bank barrier with the Nazi concentration camps.

Ian Black, writing for The Guardian, a daily not known for its philo-Semitic tendencies, noted that Latuff was among those cartoonists “drawing, without inhibition, on judeophobic stereotypes in the service of the anti-globalisation movement.”[66] Latuff also has employed antiblack racist themes in criticizing President Barack Obama.[67]

http://jcpa.org/article/anti-semitic-cartoons-on-progressive-blogs/

This is how the piece of shit portrays our President:

Dammit, are they just going to leave him hangin' out there like that?

...they clutch their pearls and exclaim "well, I never!" and walk away in a huff.

Mapplethorpe produced some extremely offensive works against Christians. That resulted in some Christians writing strongly worded letters of protest, but no one was killed. Of course, that did not stop Time magazine from listing him as one of the top ten persecuted artists.

Wonder what would have happen if Mapplethorpe targeted Islam instead of Christianity?


/I would rather get a strongly worded letter of protest over a bullet any day

about. What works ARE you talking about? How in the fuck do you think his work 'targeted Christianity'? Explain your thinking. I think you are a confused art critic.

My bad, I mistakenly thought Mapplethorpe did the 'Piss Christ". I realize Andres Serrano is the correct artist.

Christians'. His work had nothing to do with Christians.

How can you be so unaware?

But just in case you are new to this planet.....The crucifix is a holy/sacred symbol for Christians. Body wastes, such as urine is considered unclean and taboo. (we even have special rooms set aside to deposit such body wastes where they are then whisked away) Covering a holy symbol with body waste (urine) is considered defilement. Defiling a holy symbol is considered an insult and is offensive to that group.

Another example would include using the Koran to wipe your butt.

are the REACTIONS.

SOME people simply do not GET that they and others have Free Will and can CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIORS WHEN OFFENDED OR "PROVOKED."

"Self-defense" is about it, when it comes to being excused from certain reactions. And even then the threat had better be severe and imminent.

I don't think a cartoon exhibit (or magazine) meets that last qualification.

"He called me a name!" "She insulted me!" "That drawing offends my beliefs!" "[Fill-in-the-blank]-shaming!" "That's bigoted!" "That's blasphemous!"

All legally-protected speech. The angry retaliatory punch in the face? Not protected.

Now, if one wants to argue manners, propriety, decency, and the Golden Rule---that is another kettle of fish altogether.

and the only reason they CONTROL THEIR BEHAVIORS
WHEN OFFENDED OR "PROVOKED" is because of the law.

The laws of civilized countries generally prohibit such behavior.
If they could get away with it?

How many over-armed right wing Christians do you suppose
are itching to shoot some gays, some blacks, some libtards,
some ragheads? In the name of Jesus, even.

Martin Scorsese's 'Last Temptation of the Christ'. Many people were critically injured although fortunately they failed to kill anyone. They were of course 'offended' at the content of the film.

In the United States nothing happened when they showed temptation of Christ except a letter or two to the editor. Christians don't resort to violence over a picture of movie.... As someone above said, they write a strongly worded letter. Letter over killing is much more reasonable.

And while there was no violence in the US, the protests here were vigorous and followed the Paris attack, the film was pulled from entire chains of theaters. They did far more than write letters, and they were not shy about invoking that fire bombing when staging protests with mock crucifixions and such.

This 'my religion is better than theirs' tactic is a loser. Because they are all of them flawed and culpable.

Many people calling themselves Christians would happily
exercise their second amendment rights in the name of
Jesus, if it weren't for the gubmint.

do you remember what it said? I'm intrigued by its
absence.