Why deliberately offend (about Blasphemous Art)

Thanks. It helps sometimes, or at least did in the past.

1 Like

Can’t say I do. However, seems to me the category changes. Today’s Muslims are full of it when it comes to depicting the prophet. Just go to Google images

. The image below is the earliest known depiction of the prophet. (according to google image):

edinburgh_offficial_-_10584d

I do not intend to deliberately offend, but shock the other party into thinking.

For example, I once had a discussion with a christian, and pointed out that their religious dogma indicates I will go to hell. I asked them why they are so cruel, wanting me to go to hell. They said they did not want me to go there, and I pointed out that they support that position because they support that god and associated dogma. I recommended they find and worship a god less cruel.

The best thing you can do for a person and the worst thing you can do to a religion is to get people to actually think.

2 Likes

Interesting. I thought Muslims weren’t supposed to make images of their prophet. I wonder how old that… ban? prohibition? taboo? is. It must not be as ancient as I thought.

I’ve never drawn Islamic subjects simply because Islam hasn’t had a negative effect on me. I’ve drawn blasphemous images of Jesus, however… I’ve also drawn saints in an unflattering light. Here’s my take on Polycarp, who is probably responsible for The Gospel of John. It’s him imagining Jesus slaughtering everyone at Armageddon:

Fascinating.

I’ve long thought the author of The Book Of Revelation was suffering from ergot poisoning or had taken an hallucinogen. However, that’s a modern day assessment nearly 2000 years out of context, so may be quite wrong

Polycarp is one of the elders who supposedly knew John, and he probably edited the Johannine texts; that’s who the “we know his testimony is true” at John 21:24 refers to, Polycarp & Co. Because there’s differences between Revelations and The Gospel of John, I wouldn’t argue Polycarp wrote Revelations, but he’s responsible for getting it accepted as canon alongside such men as Papias, who quoted or used Revelations in a surviving fragment (Papias of Hierapolis.).

Where Revelations first came from, hell, it could’ve been a guy high on mushrooms. It’s pretty wild.

Oh, you’ll love this version of Revelations from The Brick Testament … yes, the Bible in Lego. :smiley:

In case it isn’t obvious, the person responsible for that site is an atheist, and one with a taste for a special brand of lampooning mythology fanboyism. :slight_smile:

The “NSVC” letters denote nudity, sex, violence and cursing, to save you the bother of looking them up… :slight_smile:

By the way, the producer of The Brick Testament isn’t shy about depicting the numerous genocidal Lebensraum wars that litter this mythology. One of the more interesting examples being covered here. :slight_smile:

Though his Lego rendition of Revelation really does convey the acid trip nature thereof.

Oh, and in case you haven’t encountered that brand of lunacy known as The Rapture™, which is alluded to here, and which, as you might expect, the fundgeliKKKals in former US slave states don’t actually understand one bit, there’s a film you can track down on DVD that you’ll find amusing.

The film in question is Holocaust 2000, or, alternatively in the US market, by the alternative title of The Chosen, This piece of hokum managed to attract an expensive star cast, including no less a personage than Kirk Douglas (who apparently had a pressing need to pay the rent when offered the role he played therein), and such luminaries as Simon Ward, Virginia McKenna and Anthony Quayle, all of whom no doubt regret having this on their CVs.

It is, in effect, a modern day reworking of the Revelations nonsense, directed by an Italian director who had a reputation for working on “me too” chasers of popular movie trends. When The Exorcist raked in a ton of loot at the box office, The director in question, Alberto de Martino, launched into no less than three coat-tail hanger movies to cash in on the new-found enthusiasm for creepy supernatural happenings that was spawned by The Exorcist, and this is one of them.

Basically, this movie panders to every Rapture Retard fantasy in the book, it was tailor made for an audience of kapok-brained Southern Baptists and Pentecostalists who think they are going to be the people preferentially sucked up into their cartoon magic man’s North Korea in the sky, instead of the 144,000 Jews specified in the actual Revelation text. But American religio-conservatards have never felt any shame about stealing other people’s stories, and mutating said stories beyond recognition, in order to stroke their entitlement and narcissism. Mormonism is simply one of the more extreme examples of said appropriation for the purposes of ego stroking, that have appeared on the American religious landscape, and pretty much all of them were invented by, and appeal to, racist white trash.

So it is with this movie, and de Martino knew his target audience well while directing this cinematic Cheez Whiz. This piece of celluloid Velveeta was crafted specifically, to push all the right buttons and provide all the right dog whistles that the racist religious right in the USA are programmed to orgasm to. Even though this movie was released in cinemas in 1977, you can see recognisable stereotypes all over the place in this movie, including some that presage the emergence 30 years later of such terms as “towel head” and “sand nigger”. It’s both wank fodder for fundamentalists, and, as a bonus, a wet dream for certain brands of white supremacist.

The movie also panders to the techno-fear and scientific ignorance that all too often go hand in hand with the worship of Republican Jeebus, and the only major omission from this at times hilariously obvious dreck, is some snide comment about evolution of the sort we see emanating from the likes of Ham and Comfort.

Basically, look out for this at a car boot sale and pick it up for 25 cents, then slap it in the DVD player. Enjoy seeing what was made to provide “entertainment” to the sort of people who pay for Joel Osteen’s mansion, or who lap up whatever feculent garbage is being vomited into the public domain by the likes of Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann.

Learn more about the combination of bad smell and absurd hilarity that is Holocaust 2000 here.

1 Like

AND they are virgins…

This figure has been traditionally used by Calvinists who also believe in predestination.

Some bright spark concluded that although we don’t know who will be saved, there is a simple way to have a pretty good idea.; God will obviously only lavish his largess on the saved. IE the rich and prosperous. Again obviously, god will not be generous to the damned. IE the poor, of whom there are many, many more than the rich.

The Calvinist idea of the deserving rich and undeserving poor has been a powerful idea in many societies, including our own. The concept of the undeserving poor still permeates countries such as Australia, the UK and the US. It is often reflected in government welfare policies.

If you haven’t read it, I recommend ''The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism" by Max Weber. An oldie but a goodie.

1 Like

I’ll definitely check that out. I’ve seen some Brick testament stuff before and it’s great. :slight_smile:

Furthermore, Blasphemous Art could work as a shock therapy to get theists into thinking and questioning their religion.
Blasphemy is questioning something considered holy and not allowed to be questioned in their belief, e.g. a god, the Prophet Muhammad, the “Virgin” Mary. Blasphemy explicitly shows something that is even forbidden to be thought of for a beliefer. So blasphemy can show the “un-thinkable” and thus start a process of deconstruction of faith.
For many theists this may start subconciously as their conscious thoughts are trained by religious upbringing to reject the blaphemy. But subconscious needs can be more open to blasphemous content. Take for instance sexuality that is restricted and supressed in the Abrahamic religions. Showing the Prophet Muhammad in a homoerotic situation is clearly blasphemous for a Muslim. But if this Muslim is a latent homosexual and supresses his sexual desires, such blasphemous art could awaken something. He could start to realise that deep inside he likes what he has accidentially watched. In this way a process of exploring the cognitive dissonance of being a homosexual and a devout Muslim could start, that finally leads to a self-liberation from religion.
Blasphemous Art could be a nudge for religious people to free themselves, something I consider to be very positive.

Anything that gets a negative reaction from " those whom salvation is assured" is a good thing in my opinion. As a lifelong atheist I hold all organized religions in contempt, fuck all of them, especially the Catholic church.
I have no problem displaying my hatred of religion on myself every single day. I’ve been in my wife and kid’s church for various reasons wearing a concert shirt covered in blasphemous images more than once, I simply don’t care.

2 Likes

Obviously, being blasphemous or posting art that depicts religious entities can offend. But ask yourself, how would an atheist (and not acting in any offensive manner) get treated in a very religious community, such as Saudi Arabia or certain US states?

History provides a simple answer … with zero respect or concern for such atheist. And this practice has been going on for thousands of years.

So although I do not practice this level of offense myself, I do not believe I bear any responsibility for hurting the feelings of theists. Once they tone down their rhetoric, cruelty, even persecution of atheists, then, and only then do they deserve to be treated gently and with respect.

One excuse I hear is “but that is a few in my group, I do not do that myself”. But they are part of that group, they do have voice and power and influence in that group, they should be the ones fighting for their more radical and cruel members to change their ways. And if they do not, then they are enablers, or accessories to such cruelties.

To quote an often used phrase …

If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

2 Likes

Context

That to which people choose to take offence varies with time.

When I was in primary school, (catholic boys school) we were told not to say:

‘Golly’ because= God. “Gosh”=same “Gee whiz”= Jesus

Today Muslims take violent exception to pictures of their prophet. However, portraits and paintings depicting the prophet were common for centuries within Islam . (Search Google images)

In nineteenth century English speaking countries, obscene language referred to blasphemy . EG taking ‘the lord’s name in vain’ and words such as ‘damn’. Words which are often wrongly called Anglo-Saxon expletives today tended to be used simply as common/slang descriptive terms. Eg "fuck;’ comes from the German word ‘ficken’ ‘, to strike’. ‘Cunt’ from perhaps proto Germanic ‘kunto’ or ‘kunta’ in old Norse. Various forms were used for centuries. Closer to today’s use from Elizabethan times at least, as far as I know.

My mum once told me " avoid making unnecessary enemies", which I think is sound advice. One never knows when that person may be in a position to injure one in some way. So I don’t usually intentionally offend others in real life. Internet forums tend to be anonymous with the added safety of separation of distance.

Having said that, I will not usually refrain from expressing a sincere opinion from fear of giving offence. I consider than to allow oneself to be manipulated and censored.

Some examples of such art can be found here. Apparently from a pro-islamic source. The title is suggestive of what the authors think happened: “Images of Prophet Muhammad from Islamic Art and History before the clan of Ibn Saud took Muslims hostage”.

1 Like

Having given the matter some thought, it occurred to me that no free society, that values freedom of expression can afford to insist a belief or idea is ring fenced from criticism, if they wish to remain a free society.

I don’t wish to live in any society that doesn’t allow, or value, the right of any individual to express themeselves freely.

There must of course be consequences, for example, the right to free expression should not allow defamation, either of individuals or groups. Beyond that pernicious beliefs and ideas should be challenged using that freedom of expression.

One of the fundamental issues I have against religions, is that they so often demand worship and adherence to doctrine and dogma above our respect of the rights of other human beings. A pernicious idea, that I can never accept.

even were they able to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence to support the existence of any deity.

3 Likes

An interesting thought. So true freedom of speech and religion are mutually exclusive, as religion always limits freedom by doctrine and dogma. I would try to state it like this: You can only have one highest principle: If it is freedom than religion can’t be on top. If your highest principle is a religion than freedom comes on second place at best (history shows that usually freedom comes at a much lower position for religious people). Furthermore, if you choose freedom as the highest principle, all other principles have to stand behind? I wonder how a society with such “radical” freedom would look like…

I’m always curious what the person using “freedom” means. It’s such a vast and subjective word.
Often many who use it mean freedom
“From responsibility or consequences”

Freedom of speech? Freedom to travel? Freedom to own property? Freedom to molest children?

That word “freedom” needs tight definitions.

Freedom to suppress…

1 Like