Jesus and Osama
Queensland artist, Priscilla Bracks has submitted a painting, Bearded Orientals, Making the Empire Cross of a combination of Jesus and Osama Bin Laden. Luke Sullivan has entered The fourth street of Fatima, a statue of the Virgin Mary wearing an Islamic burqa and a rosary. Both works were entered for the religious art competition, the Blake Prize.
Leading politicians and religious figures have clambered all over themselves to criticise these works,
“The choice of such artwork is gratuitously offensive to the religious beliefs of many Australians,” John Howard
“I haven’t seen either of these pieces but from what has been described to me, it’s a pity they were not stolen instead of the Dutch masterpiece,” Morris Iemma.
“I accept, you know, people can have artistic freedom, but I find this painting off, off in the extreme. I understand how people would be offended by it”. Kevin Rudd.
The Australian Christian Lobby said placing Jesus in the same artwork as Osama bin Laden was “a big mistake”. “Jesus brought a message of love and forgiveness that has nothing to do with terrorism,” spokeswoman Glynis Quinlan said.
However, the competition sponsor, Uniting Church Minister The Reverend Rod Pattenden, said his mission was to spark debate about spirituality in a world that was “cynical, degraded and in crisis”.
Artist Bracks described her work as a ‘juxtaposition of good and evil‘ and said it was inspired by her thinking of ‘what would happen to the stories about this man over thousands of years. Could that possibly lead to someone with a cult-like status’.
Reverend Pattenden said the artist was questioning “the idea that you can have absolute good and absolute evil. Life’s a bit more complicated than that”.
Which just goes to show that good art is thought provoking and can be interpreted by different people in different ways.
The rush by Howard and Rudd et al to denounce these works is pathetic and contravenes the spirit of free expression and free speech that i thought this country embodied. There is nothing offensive about these pictures as Jesus is portrayed as ‘good’ and OBL as ‘evil’. But even if they were offensive (for instance if Jesus had been portrayed as ‘evil’), then the artists still have the right to offend. That is what free speech means. The right to offend.
I intend to follow up this story with a look at Victoria’s Religious Tolerance Act of 2001. Why is religion afforded this protection? How does the law define religion? And what is to stop me setting up a new religion and then demanding protection? I have some ideas on the formation of a new religion which i think fellow classical liberals will like.
25 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Excellent post. I’m not religious myself, but I have studied basic Bible history and that sort of thing just out of interest. It is my understanding that Jesus was actually someone who challenged the ideas of his time, and by many, he was considered a terrorist. It wasn’t till the same bunch of folks who killed him in the first place decided to adopt Christianity that widespread acceptance began.
I’m not sure if this really has anything to do with the artist’s intentions, but that is one of the main ideas of good art: it should challenge ideas and provoke thoughts and discussion. It is up to the viewer to decide what the piece of art means to them. If you find this type of art offensive, I’m afraid it’s really your own fault (mind you, I can see how it would be offensive to some).
I thought the Mary ina Burqa thing was a cutting remark towards illiberal Muslims.
I don’t actually mind that Howard, Iemma, Rudd etc find such things offensive and say so. It’s no surprise to me that I disagree with them, but they are entitled to their view. People choose their attitudes, including what gives them offense.
My only concern would be if they made the assumption that such art should be prohibited or suppressed on the basis of that opinion. The media never seems capable of distinguishing between an opinion and regulation.
Spot on David. Although in the Howard quote he did not even say he found it offensive. He just said many Australians would. So it’s not even an opinion about the art but rather an opinion about what others will think of it.
90% of Australians probably don’t even realize concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective. It would be political suicide for Rudd or Howard to say anything else, regardless of their actual opinions. Even hesitating on the issue would have them under fire. So really its a loaded question, there is only one answer they can give.
David, Terje
In the UK, Jerry Springer the Opera was closed down, the ‘Piss Christ’ exhibition was cancelled as was the ‘Chocolate Jesus’.
All following similar comments from leading UK politicians.
Rudd, Howard and Iemma have all the paved the way for less future criticism of religion.
Bob
No doubt you’re right.
However, they could have said this,
“I personally find the works distasteful and i can see they will cause offence to both Muslims and Christians alike. However, Australia is a free country and i will not be the first to ban Art as this is a slippery slope we must never go down.”
David – material for an LDP press release? nice controversial topic and all that.
Kevin Rudd said in the quote that he accepts the concept of artistic freedom.
I’m not saying that there is no risk of expression getting banned here (Howard recently banned non-violent videos featuring sexual erotica in parts of the NT) but I do not expect it to happen in this instance.
However, they could have said this,
“I personally find the works distasteful and …
Agreed. Or even something like, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Unfortunately the nobility of Voltaire is nowhere to be found in Australian political circles. It’s invariably, I disapprove therefore I won’t allow it.
A religion to appeal to classical liberals? Sounds great! Do keep us posted.
Like Universal Life Church of California, perhaps.
I agree with pommy’s sentiments at #7, though I certainly don’t buy the artist’s argument of what it was about… she’s just another lefty fruit-loop out for attention (and succeeding).
Fact is, I’m an atheist, and I find it offensive – but people have a right to be offensive… though best they do it with their own money.
Tim Blair’s latest column on a Bill of Rights touched in this:
“Any Australian citizen may at any time write a book, present a play, make a film, or complete an art work of any type, entirely free of any government intrusion. Including intrusion in the form of grants.”
I’d also add, that in addition to having a right to be offensive, people have a right to be offended. Most complaints quotes (Howard, Rudd, etc) have not called for a ban – they have simply expressed their personal distaste.
Personally I try to avoid offending members of any religion unless they annoy me. This tends to give me a peaceful life, and gives them one, if they have enough sense to stay out of my way after they piss me off the first time.
Experience has taught me that the arts community has a high proportion of pompous ‘liberal’ nits among it looking for someone who will accept their contention that they are somehow superior.
Fleeced and Pommy are right on the button, however I doubt that it offends Muslims. No bombs have been thrown.
Patiently waiting for the artwork ‘Piss Mohammed’.
Buelah? anyone?
So Howard et al would like to impose their prejudices between an artist and his/her canvas.
Well too bad, I for one will not have my oil paint mixed with gratuitous political censorship.
tnuc wrote:
“Patiently waiting for the artwork ‘Piss Mohammed’.”
Spot on
We’re not allowed to offend Muslims (or any other religious group for that matter), Christians, on the other hand, are a fair game. One wonders why… Could one of the reasons be that it is safe to offend them? i.e. you’re not gonna see riots and similar entertainment if their God is publicly blasphemed… hmm… Could that, in turn, be linked to their belief to love one’s neighbour and to submit to a lawfully installed authorities…?
It appears to be Artists vs Religion week.
In Sweden, a picture of Mohammed’s head on a dog’s body was published in a Swedish newspaper. Sweden refused to apologise but expressed regret that it had offended.
In the US, the Washington Post has pulled an irreverent and long running cartoon strip, because it poked fun at the notion of a faddish political activist adopting Islamist politics.
I guess that makes it Artists 2 Religion 1
Nikolai, I think it is that the west has gone through the religious wars already, so westerners have become accustomed to the idea that they have to tolerate the opinions of other people, even if they find those opinions offensive. Also, Jesus meekly accepted criticism, but Mohammed had critics killed- he didn’t kill them himself, but he told others to kill them, and said it was not a sin. (my source is ‘Why I am not a Muslim’ by ibn Warriq). Those different role-models have produced different moral codes. I am not sure that Islam, which is tightly integrated into communities, can ever reform enough to fit into the modern world, which separates religion from State.
Has the RSPCA been called?
agree that the freedom of artistic expression trumps the small, narrow and parochial definition of “good taste” adopted by some, eg Howard.
But there is still the question of hypocrisy — that the freedom of artistic expression runs one way only. Remember the danish cartoons?
Interesting point, Steven, although I don’t think those cartoons should have been censored either. If we are going to “naturalise” (for want of a better term) the differing approaches to these separate types of artwork, I would be in favour of whichever option allows any artwork to be published (provided someone is willing to publish it, or else the artist can publish it themselves).
I think this is the position that most people here would take, too, but I would be interested to hear what others have to say.
You can buy action figures of Jesus. So why can’t you have a chocolate Jesus? Mmmmmmmm
Easter themed Chocolate Cricifixes?
Body of Christ indeed!
I recently read a book by a jewish Kabbalist, who explained to a pupil that when Jesus talked about eating the bread and the wine, he sounded like he knew of the Kabbalic doctrine that at finer levels, all parts of the universe are connected. Whatever you eat can be holy!!
I agree with DavidL & Terje. The artists are free to offend people and Howard/Rudd & friends are free to say they are offended.
But the real problem is that John Howard or Rudd would never propose decreases in current government censorship powers.
I think Pommy’s comment #6 is true.
In fact I can’t think of a politician that has ever talked about abolishing censorship in this country.