Patterico's Pontifications

6/30/2015

Condom Pope

Filed under: General — JD @ 7:45 am

[guest post by JD]

The NYTimes would never publish a picture of Mohammed made out of condoms, as like with Charlie Hedbo and Mohammed cartoons, they find that needlessly offensive. Publishing a picture of the Pope made out of condoms, or Piss Christ, is just fine. I guess because Christians won’t behead infidels over a picture. 

If it weren’t for double standards, the NYT and the MFM would have no standards. 

—JD

51 Responses to “Condom Pope”

  1. Context? Not being a New Yorker or otherwise within the proximity of La Dame Gris, I have no idea of what sparked this post.

    kishnevi (93670d)

  2. I could not get a link to work, kishnevi. NYT published condom pope picture yesterday.

    JD (3b5483)

  3. But a rodeo clown was pilloried for wearing an Obama mask. Take your First Amendment and stick it your habeas corpus.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. The NYTimes would never publish a picture of Mohammed made out of condoms. . .

    Not just that, but the NYT won’t even publish a pencil drawing made of Mohammed for fear of offending Muslims. But it’s full speed ahead with the condom Pope for that crew of prissy dilettantes.

    JVW (8278a3)

  5. Thanks.
    Found it via Powerline which does not remind me I have only ten free articles, pops up with subscription links, and complains that I am using my tablet in landscape mode and nit in Grey Lady approved portrait mode.

    I am not a Catholic, of course, but seeing it I think it is not offensive. It is idiotic.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  6. this portrait was revealed a while ago, when the active Pope was Benedict. I didn’t think it was nearly as offensive as the disgusting “C-i-P” garbage – until i saw what she named it.
    It is not obvious what the materials are when viewed from a bit of a distance and the Pope is shown in a pleasant viewpoint. If it weren’t for the name, I probably would not have complained if a gallery i was a patron of had shown it.

    That being said, that was then. Now after the Pencil Mohumed reaction and the NYT refusal to do what even HufPost did (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html) , such an item should be out of bounds for the NYT to show.

    Wonder if their ombudsman will have anything to write about it.

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  7. self follow up to #7: i probably would not have complained because i probably would not have realized what the medium was.

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  8. I am not a Catholic, of course, but seeing it I think it is not offensive. It is idiotic.

    I don’t think it’s inherently offensive, but it’s offensive because the subject is famous for his opposition to condoms, and it was done precisely for that reason. As the bishop quoted in the article said, it’s like depicting Gandhi with a submachine gun.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  9. At least this looks like it took some small amount of talent to create. PISS CHRIST is something that a 14 year old could have made in an afternoon. A not especially clever 14 year old.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  10. Milhouse, I think it is offensive for the same reason you don’t. And I’m not Catholic either.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  11. Milhouse, I think it is offensive for the same reason you don’t.

    Was there a typo in that sentence? As worded I don’t understand what it means.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  12. re #9 & #11: i think that the lack of a single point of reaction is why it didn’t get so much attention when it was displayed the first time. and as #10 pointed out, that there was some obvious artistic talent involved.

    Question: I have not read the book or seen the movie, but isn’t a major plot point of
    “The Davinci Code” that J.C. had sex and a children with M.M. ? Is the author still in hiding and the book still being burned in bonfires?

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  13. It also portrays a demonstrably false proposition, that condom use is a primary resource in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. See “Broken Promises” by Green.

    But the left is not about following science and the facts, they are just about blustering about how conservatives supposedly do what they in actuality do.

    MD (Back) in Philly (f9371b)

  14. SeeRpa – their public editor defended their hypocrisy vigorously.

    JD (0eecb0)

  15. Things are offensive to the Professionally Offended; to the rest of us, it’s no big deal.

    The realistic Dana (f6a568)

  16. Coincidentally, I went to Milwaukee Sunday to get away from the Gacy Pride Day in Chicago. The museum’s north wing (you know, where they keep the art?) was closed for reconstruction. The only thing open was the small exhibit hall but they still charged me $14 to enter the place. I was in there for all of 20 minutes.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  17. The only thing open was the small exhibit hall but they still charged me $14 to enter the place. I was in there for all of 20 minutes.

    Man, Crusty, for $14 I would much rather go watch a bad movie.

    JVW (8278a3)

  18. I misread your post, Milhouse. Sorry.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  19. Since I seem to have been unclear, let me explain: Some things are inherently offensive to a person, such as depicting him in urine or fæces. Some things are not inherently offensive, but can be offensive in specific contexts, or when done to specific people. For instance, I don’t think anyone would object to a portrait of George Washington done in condoms, or to one depicting him anachronistically holding a submachinegun. Nor would I think there’d be any objection to a portrait of Gandhi done in condoms, or of Benedict with a submachinegun. But Bendict in condoms, and Gandhi with the submachinegun, is offensive because those people are famous for being opposed to those things, and because of the artist’s conscious intent to offend.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  20. Just try creating a portrait of President Obama made entirely out of Confederate (Battle) Flags.

    Then you’d see the fur fly!

    Pious Agnostic (7eb3b0)

  21. “There’s no simple, unwavering formula we can apply in situations like this. We really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone,” the Times’ associate managing editor for standards Phil Corbett told the Examiner Monday, defending the newspaper’s decision to publish Johnson’s handiwork…

    The Times’ Corbett told the Examiner, “I don’t think these situations – the Milwaukee artwork and the various Muhammad caricatures – are really equivalent. For one thing, many people might disagree, but museum officials clearly consider this Johnson piece to be a significant artwork.”

    “Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bears this out,” he added. “Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.”

    JD (3b5483)

  22. “Also, there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme (the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people but to raise a social question about the fight against AIDS). And finally, the very different reactions bears this out,” he added. “Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.”

    Is that an invitation, or a dare?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  23. I guess if Christians started beheading people, the NYT would re-evaluate.

    JD (3b5483)

  24. That said, it’s probably impossible to avoid ever offending anyone,”

    Quite true but does it almost always have to be Christians or Christian symbols?

    “Hundreds of thousands of people protested worldwide, for instance, after the Danish cartoons were published some years ago. While some people might genuinely dislike this Milwaukee work, there doesn’t seem to be any comparable level of outrage.”

    Sure it does you insolent, uncaring, unfeeling leftist bast^rd, we just don’t all run around crazy like moslems do. I’d be willing to bet this “artist” wouldn’t do one of mohammad, doing anything, out of any medium not even condoms. Cause he’s a coward and this proves it.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  25. To be clear, I think the NYT explanation and defense is a steaming like of fatuous dishonest cowardly horse manure.

    JD (3b5483)

  26. Shorter Times’ associate managing editor for standards Phil Corbett: We will offend whoever we want to offend and there’s nothing you can do about it.

    Dana (32d490)

  27. #24 Let me fix that for you ….

    I guess if Christians started beheading people at the NYT, the NYT would re-evaluate.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  28. How about a portrait of Mohammad made of ISIS flags?

    htom (4ca1fa)

  29. How about instead of the off-limits Mohammed, a pig’s head soaking in a brine bath, with a Quran in its snout?

    John Hitchcock (70e8e7)

  30. Mr. Hitchcock, that is Michelangelo inspired art!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  31. htom, the ISIS flags are good ’cause if it was mohammad made from Rebel flags it would be a hate crime, dontchaknow? Beside, ISIS flags are legal and easier to get.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  32. I really think we need to drop the idea that some expression is “Offensive” as a point against it. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives establishment is all too ready to suppress “Offensive” expression, so long as it is the LIRPs that define what is offensive. We need to revive the word “Vulgar”; meaning common, uninspired, annoying, and tiresome. PISS CHRIST is vulgar. As I pointed out before, it could easily have been made by a mentally challenged and unruly child. That it was treated as an important artwork by any segment of society is a sign that that segment needs its medications adjusted.

    Now, mind you, I have no problem with somebody exhibiting the vulgar on his own behalf, with his own money or money he collected by persuasion. On its own terms, vulgar can be fun, in a stupid kind of way. Tarantino is vulgar. But it isn’t important, and it certainly isn’t worth spending public money on.

    This portrait of Pope Benedict is vulgar. Its only point appears to be the “shock” of its material. It required talent, or at least skill, to create, but it has the same artistic significance as last year’s wank-mag centerfold.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  33. You’re correct, Mr. Schofield. I often use vile and vulgar to describe “shock junk” or stuff or persons who are. For example, I call Perry vile and vulgar often. To no effect I might add. He never cleans up his act. Some things I find offensive and in the condom Pope case the medium is not meant to call attention to AIDs. That’s crapola. The medium is meant to degrade Catholics Christians and the Pope. Now getting me from offended to outraged is damn near impossible. I leave outraged to leftists, gays and moslems. They’re better at it. BTW, when something or someone offends me I just walk away and cut off all contact. That works for me.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  34. Hoagie,

    Nonsense, the medium is intended to get the “artist” the attention she craves. Which is why “vulgar” needs to make a comeback. It’s dismissive. It puts childish drivel like this portrait on the same level as Bevis and Clinton – I mean Butthead, when it belongs.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  35. Completely off topic, but this is important for people to see.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  36. Thanks for the heads-up on Sabeel, Milhouse. It’s now on my radar.

    felipe (56556d)

  37. I understand where you are coming from Mr. Schofield however, if the artist really wanted only attention she would have done one of mohammad raping a ten year old out of pages of the Koran. She’d have gotten attention on every continent. She wanted the “soft” attention one gets by degrading Christianity. IOW, free expression with no ramifications and plenty of loot and a permanent position in the leftist New York art social circles. Mission accomplished. Still she’s a vulgar, vile b!tch.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  38. What amuses is the idea that the use of condoms as a medium for a papal portrait is somehow cutting-edge social commentary. It’s tired, and frankly so common and, yes, vulgar, that it loses any impact that the original artist might have gleaned from it’s creation, some time in 1980’s if I recall correctly.

    What is offensive isn’t the condoms, at least to this Catholic: it’s the adolescent foot-stamping. Yes, dear, daddy sees you. What a special girl you are!

    Pious Agnostic (4e1a81)

  39. I think it is offensive to catholics, and it should be. their doctrine holds the pope up very very high.
    To me, the pope is Jerry Falwell in a funny hat… no special conduit to the higher power even though the hat is spectacular.
    His views on global climate change? *yawn*
    On abortion? He came down on the decision of life? Whoa? Who knew

    steveg (fed1c9)

  40. Their double-standards mean they’re twice as good as those of us who only have standards.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  41. BTW, Mr. Schofield, that’s why Gil holds no credibility with me. He too thrives on the “soft” attention one gets by degrading Christianity. Let Gil go to al Jazeera or other moslem web sites and say about Allah and Mohammad what he says about Jehovah and Christ then, if his head is still attached to his neck, we’ll talk. Gil knows he can get away with belittling, degrading and insulting us and our faith. He also knows if he did that to moslems they’d hack every name on the site, no in the world to find and kill him. So does our snowflake “artist”.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  42. just read #22.
    Oh My Gosh. Do they really think that way? So if the American Communist Party can get a recruiting drive going and start targeting those who display the Hammer and Sickle , Lenin or Stalin in non-flattering ways then the NYTimes will not show what those displays are?

    Okay Christian Soldiers, take your cue !

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  43. The NYT’s justification boils down to: “Catholics and Christians don’t get as riled up as muslims do.”

    They have become a joke under Pinch Sulzberger.

    Estragon (ada867)

  44. I miss pope uglybutt he didn’t hate prosperity

    happyfeet (59dea8)

  45. I guess if Christians started beheading people, the NYT would re-evaluate.

    Or if the restarted burning people at the stake.

    Gil (febf10)

  46. Gil is an avant garde commenter of the first water: Urine. The second water is tears.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. Or that.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  48. Beheading, burning, whatever. The point is they’re begging for Christians to turn violent on them. They may end up regretting that.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  49. That was in a happier time when pollution from woodburning fires and AGW were not concerns, Gil. Ah, the good old days. Maybe we could microwave them?

    nk (dbc370)

  50. And how long is it before someone decides that the score needs evened up?

    How many staff would the NYT allow to get shot before they changed policy?

    scrubone (c3104f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6354 secs.