cont'd ...

Perhaps for a better understanding we need to look
at the significance and context of what religious
images mean to Muslims and why lampooning them or
even drawing them is considered blasphemous and evokes
such strong reactions:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30813742

Quoting from the link:

"Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words
and actions of Muhammed and his companions, explicitly
prohibits images of Allah, Muhammed and all the major
prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions."

"More widely, Islamic traidtion has discouraged the figurative
depiction of living creatures, especially human beings,
Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or
decorative."

"Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban.
Representation of images of the prophet, mainly produced in
the 7th century in Persian can be found."

True, Foxy, but the Pellsians didn't storm the art gallery and shoot the artist and the director.

Perhaps they could find nothing in their creed that would be an authorization, bit hard to get around "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

@Foxy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 12:48:30 PM

You support the freedom of speech and behaviour that produced a 'Piss Christ' and allowed it to remain.

So you would see nothing wrong with a 'Piss Muhammad' and it is OK if there are demonstrations, with the police enforcement to ensure legal, peaceful demonstrations and no inconvenience to business and the public who should be allowed to go about their normal activities?

While those acts are in bad taste and one can understand the authoritarians (zealots?) on both sides not being amused, free speech is the cornerstone of democracy.

If we believe in free speech we cannot only
claim it for ourselves and deny it to others
in the form of protests. Also - people who enjoy
the rights of free speech have a duty to respect
other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is limited by the rights of others. For example,
their right to maintain their good reputation and
their right to privacy.

All societies, including democratic ones, put various
limitations on what people may say or do. We have laws
that prohibit certain types of speech and actions that
might harm people.

Freedom of speech should always be tempered with
responsibility. Of course drawing the line between the
two is difficult at the best of times. Editorial decisions
have always been guided not just by legal restrictions
but by what is fair and tolerable within their society.
They need to look more closely at their own boundaries
of what can and can't be said and done.

Foxy,

What can you possibly have against lampooning a man in his 50s who got the urge for a 6 year old virgin, then over ruled her father's objections to him marrying her?

Of course there was one redeeming feature, he didn't consummate the marriage until she was a robust, thumping big nine year old and after he bedded her she was still allowed to play with her dolls.

One imagines that the Neo-Nazis get upset at cartoons of Hitler but to be fair people are forbidden by law in NSW from using his picture as a target.

Foxy,

You did have quite a say about 'Piss Christ'. All I am trying to establish is whether you would apply the same rule to Islam.

Would a 'Piss Muhammed' be art or not?