Muslim Woman's Artwork Removed from Canadian University for being offensive to Muslims

How much did the illegal drug advocacy aspect factor in?

Sharp eye. In the public outrage, very little. In the actual upholding of the state action by the (conservative) Supreme Court as not violating his 1A rights, considerably.

Although, as the liberal side agreed, that argument was pretty comically farcical to me. All of them, iirc, agreed that the school could exercise discretion in maintaining order (the liberals said that an actual showing of interference with the educational process or retention of administrative order was, however, required - while the conservatives more or less said that minors don't get rigid free speech rights), but only the conservatives actually made the argument that prohibiting endorsement of drug use (by millennia-dead religious figures?) was the school's primary interest.
 
Neither should be because they're both awful, low effort pieces designed primarily for offense.

I got you problem with them asking but it's different when you insult Christians .

You remember when piss Christ was touring from gallery to gallery. And the "art" world defended not removed it

Yet the Jesus in a jar of piss was allowed to be displayed for months with Leftists celebrating the "free speech". I know this is Canada, but the double standard is easy to see.
Serrano is or at least was Catholic at the time he made "Piss Christ."
 
Yet the Jesus in a jar of piss was allowed to be displayed for months with Leftists celebrating the "free speech". I know this is Canada, but the double standard is easy to see.
To be fair I think that was at a museum while this was up at a university so I think its a little different. If this was moved to a museum it would probably have a better shot at staying up.
 
From what I remember it's that Jesus had a child was the big thing.
Forgot about that part.

Maybe I should watch the movie now that I've forgotten a lot of the plot details from the book.
 
Serrano is or at least was Catholic at the time he made "Piss Christ."
I didn't say otherwise. Some people like offending their coreligionists, that doesn't necessarily lend it more merit.
 
I got you problem with them asking but it's different when you insult Christians .

You remember when piss Christ was touring from gallery to gallery. And the "art" world defended not removed it
Don't you think some art is appropriate for art galleries but not necessarily universities? I would say so and I think both this boobie carpet and the piss Christ fall in that category.
 
I didn't say otherwise. Some people like offending their coreligionists, that doesn't necessarily lend it more merit.
That also wasn't his intent ironically. His goal was to show how Christians/Catholics themselves are defiling Christ. Hence the piss.
 
Don't you think some art is appropriate for art galleries but not necessarily universities? I would say so and I think both this boobie carpet and the piss Christ fall in that category.

Sure as long as it's even across the board.

How do you think that's going to happen, so where is the line.
 
That also wasn't his intent ironically. His goal was to show how Christians/Catholics themselves are defiling Christ. Hence the piss.
I think that's an admirable message but I still feel there is a way to aesthetically articulate that idea without recourse to such crude measures.
Sure as long as it's even across the board.

How do you think that's going to happen, so where is the line.
Well these two cases aren't identical so its hard to know if its even or not. Most campuses have student organizations for the major religions so presumably most religiously sensitive art would face some resistance.
 
I am completely against censoring art, regardless of who it offends.

I also kind of like that piece of art. Painting a nude female body on an Islamic prayer mat is a fairly interesting idea. You have the beauty of a prayer mat, and you have the beauty of the female body. Yet seeing them together brings a feeling of taboo, instead of anything that you would feel seeing them separately. The Islamic culture is full of beauty, I think they have some of the most beautiful art and architecture in the world. Yet the culture tends to reject, conceal, or create a taboo around the beauty of the human body?

I like it, they should have kept it. I mean it's not exactly subtle, but nobody should be apologizing for art. Some people will think it's dumb, some will think it's great, some will be offended. That's kind of the point.

She should have drawn a nude woman spreading her ass and showing her butthole. That is what I consider art.
 
I think that's an admirable message but I still feel there is a way to aesthetically articulate that idea without recourse to such crude measures.

Well these two cases aren't identical so its hard to know if its even or not. Most campuses have student organizations for the major religions so presumably most religiously sensitive art would face some resistance.
I don't agree with censorship personally and that's whether or not I agree with the message.
 
If someone took a portrait of Jesus on the cross and painted a naked dude on top of it, you don't think moderate Christians might say something?

It not the people who will complain with words that they are worried about. Muslims take offense to artistic expression / media a tad differently than Christians.

Publish a picture of jesus getting ass fucked by Santa -- then publish one of your vision of Mohammad, and then document the types of backlash you receive.
 
It not the people who will complain with words that they are worried about. Muslims take offense to artistic expression / media a tad differently than Christians.

Publish a picture of jesus getting ass fucked by Santa -- then publish one of your vision of Mohammad, and then document the types of backlash you receive.

But that's not what was being discussed.
 
But that's not what was being discussed.

This is the same school had a playing of Corpus Christi -- they are not worried about offending a religious group, they are worried about possible severe backlash from a specific group
 
Back
Top