Just a quick note on the Swedish artist article. I noticed that the only muslim that the article represented was a female "wife and mother" that wears a burqa. I'm not expecting some quasi-objectivity from a news media source, but I think that the choices for speaking muslims have been severely limited to the voice of this one woman. I have no idea what the general thinking is within the wider muslim world, but the article itself already leads the reader to a certain conclusion about what to think of this artist.
Personally I respect his right as an individual to express something (anything), but he had to know that something like this was a possibility. I think we have to consider the possibility that he wanted something like this to happen (maybe not the slitting the throat part) in terms of publicity. He claims to be an atheist, but he demonstrates some "faith" in his ability to shock other religions (Jesus as a pedophile?). We could even coin a new term for a religion of shock -- "shockigion"? Anyone? Maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Astute insights, Josh. I agree. We know that the Danish newspaper that published the original inflammatory cartoons in 2005 had the same idea to spark debate. This is not unusual in Scandinavian countries, but they continue to be surprised that the rest of the world objects.
Post a Comment