I would add, the reason I (and I'd wager most others) find this image appealing is because it's a parody of one of the most famous works of art in history. Not because we view it as a religious attack. I'm simply unaware of a similar well-known work of art, related to Islam, that could be parodied in some way that wasn't clearly meant as an attack on Islam.
"It is quite telling that the lampooners wouldn’t dare try the same thing with an image of Mohammed (considered by Islam adherents a prophet, not a deity). Reason? They are scared about how devout Moslems might express their displeasure. Lesson? It’s only OK to mock someone’s religion if you can be reasonably sure they are non-violent."
Is there a famous painting of Mohammed that could be lampooned? I don't think lampooners across the world are afraid of making a parody of such an image. Rather, there's no such image to parody.
It's a strong point you make. I want to bring up what I think is an interesting vantage point.
Clearly, the subject matter is basis for greivance here. It's a religious painting containing a major religious symbol, and the substitution of cartoon characters for the original people in the work is viewed as offensive. No problem.
But... What if it was a painting of a 1950's american family sitting in their living room listening to an old radio theater broadcast. The message in this painting is the fabric of american culture. If we change the figures in this picture into the Simpsons, for instance, does it suddenly become offensive to american purists? I don't think so.
The point? I think it's just easier to be offended than it is to view things in a wider scope.
Is there a famous painting of Mohammed that could be lampooned? I don't think lampooners across the world are afraid of making a parody of such an image. Rather, there's no such image to parody.
It's a strong point you make. I want to bring up what I think is an interesting vantage point.
Clearly, the subject matter is basis for greivance here. It's a religious painting containing a major religious symbol, and the substitution of cartoon characters for the original people in the work is viewed as offensive. No problem.
But... What if it was a painting of a 1950's american family sitting in their living room listening to an old radio theater broadcast. The message in this painting is the fabric of american culture. If we change the figures in this picture into the Simpsons, for instance, does it suddenly become offensive to american purists? I don't think so.
The point? I think it's just easier to be offended than it is to view things in a wider scope.