Brave Aussie artist creates composite image of Mohammed and Hitler

posted at 10:12 am on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

No no, of course not. She’s all about challenging perceptions … in the safest, least challenging way possible, of course. A close-up plus the ever daring Mary-in-a-burqa shot are here, if you care. My advice: if you’ve a hankering to see a religious icon insulted, skip this lowbrow crap and spend the time reading Hitchens’s new column on Mother Teresa instead. Quote:

She got what she wanted, and found it a crushing disappointment.

It seems, therefore, that all the things that made Mother Teresa famous—the endless hard toil, the bitter austerity, the ostentatious religious orthodoxy—were only part of an effort to still the misery within. Again, the timeline would seem to support this interpretation. After 10 years of gnawing doubt, she reported a brief remission on the death of Pope Pius XII in the fall of 1958. Praying for him at a requiem mass, she found herself relieved of “the long darkness … that strange suffering.” The respite only lasted for five weeks and then she was back “in the tunnel” once more. Soon after came the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which at a gathering of India’s Catholics in Bombay she violently opposed, saying that what was wanted was not new thinking but more work and more faith. What could be a clearer indication of a deep need to suppress all doubt, both in herself and others?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, the Islamic reaction to the latest tweak of their own most revered figure is as predictable in its own way as the Aussie artwork. Note to Swedish diplomats stationed abroad: it’s time to check the fireproofing at the embassy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Violent riots & blood in the streets. Rosie warned us. Dang methodists.

locomotivebreath1901 on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Christian mobs worldwide riot in 5…6…7…8…9…

MadisonConservative on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Can anyone show us an actual picture of Jesus Christ so that we can compare it with this artist’s rendering? No? Moving on.

Doug on August 30, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Holy toledo. That’s offensive even to me.

The Mother Teresa stories just make me sad. She was a good woman, and her loss of faith must have been horribly painful for her. Like being widowed and orphaned on the same day.

Tanya on August 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Headline:

Brave Aussie artist creates composite image of Mohammed and Hitler

and then

No no, of course not.

This must be meant as irony or dark humor? It’s confusing. I may need to take a break.

RushBaby on August 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

if you’ve a hankering to see a religious icon insulted, skip this lowbrow crap and spend the time reading Hitchens’s new column on Mother Teresa instead.

I think Hitch shares the “misery within” and I now only have great sympathy for him. I hope he finds peace.

TheBigOldDog on August 30, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I wish Hitchens didn’t see the need to characterize someone else’s thoughts in a way that benefits his ideas. It is very dishonest and unnecessary. He is mostly a militant atheist. It isn’t enough that HE believes there is no God (of course he can’t actually use those words because belief in nothing implies you have a concept of that which is not believed and would therefore make it real at least in his own thoughts).

He can’t just believe what he believes and state it and leave well enough alone. He has to make sure to make everyone believe that because he is intelligent, he is right (which is hardly ever a cause and effect). It is important to him that he villify anyone who doesn’t agree with him and that makes his arguments for his positions weak.

Villifying Mother Theresa is not a good idea, nor is it proper, nor is it appropriate, nor is it right. Hitchens has no idea what Mother Theresa believed or why she believed it. . . yet he states emphatically that he has the knowledge of this woman’s most personal relationship with the Christ of the New Testament.

As for the ‘artwork’, YAWN.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Tanya on August 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Tanya, I take comfort from the Mother Teresa story. Not from an angle of making me feel better about myself, but in seeing what she did with her doubts, whatever they may have been.

She never altered her approach, and never surrendered her belief, despite her doubts. It is sad that someone like Hitchens would use her story to prop up his own spiritual emptiness and lack of understanding.

Jaibones on August 30, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Dude – you are on about faith today. Traffic must really be lagging!

nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Ah Christopher Hitchens. Unsattisfied with his own unhappy life where he spends all his time writing about a deity he doesn’t believe exist, he now has to drag everyone else down to his level of misery.

I guess since Hitchens doesn’t believe in hell, he’s getting all his eternal suffering done on earth.

BKennedy on August 30, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Between Hitchens and Mother Teresa, I think I would respect Mother Teresa far more than bitchens any day.

People will remember Mother Teresa. Noone will remember Christopher Bitchens.

Mazztek on August 30, 2007 at 11:05 AM

The Mother Teresa stories just make me sad. She was a good woman, and her loss of faith must have been horribly painful for her. Like being widowed and orphaned on the same day.

Tanya on August 30, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Everything I’ve read about what she wrote implies that she was struggling with her faith, not abandoning it.

The Bible says, “work out your faith with fear and trembling,” and that’s exactly what she was doing. All these letters have proven is that she was a real human being, capable and feeling lost and betrayed by her God, the only being whose perceived betrayal could hurt the most.

Unless you’re a Christian who does nothing more than regularly attend church, you’re going to have these feelings.

The Bible calls Christians the “bride of Christ” for a reason. The relationship we have with God feels very much like relationships we have with other people with the only difference being that it’s a relationship with a perfect being, meaning the only blame can lie with us, not God.

She speaks of feeling abandoned by God. Guess what, so did Jesus. His last, dying words attest to this.

Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM

“Sparking spiritually”? Islam promoted by Bin Laden is as unspiritual as you can get! It is a religion of carnal-minded, politically-motivated, hate-driven, death-loving, baby killers, based not upon historical fact, but upon emotional fanaticism.

Intolerance? No, the truth.

ricelchew on August 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Or perhaps better fanatic emotionalism.

ricelchew on August 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM

I wish Hitchens didn’t see the need to characterize someone else’s thoughts in a way that benefits his ideas.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Christians do that to atheists all the time. How does your own medicine taste? Bitter?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Christians do that to atheists all the time. How does your own medicine taste? Bitter?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Right, and Christians have also killed people in the name of their religion in the past, so the rest of us shouldn’t get upset when Muslims do it.

I don’t know about you, or anyone else here, but I speak for myself and only myself and feel no shame when a Christian does something stupid, since I realize that I’m an individual.

I have no problem calling out stupid Christians, but it’s stupid to say that just because some Christians do that that the rest of us agree with or even like it.

Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Here’s her site http://priscillabracks.com/

It seems she had some interesting pieces until the war started, and then became inexplicably fascinated with Barbie dolls and weapons, wanting to make lame political statements with as little chance of being offensive to non-Christians as possible.

Anti-Christian art, whatever the inspriation, is the most gutless form of expression today.

Kendrick on August 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I like M.T. I like C.H.

Hitchens is brilliant and I like listening to him. I don’t know if he’s right.

Hitchens will not chop my head off or do anything else to harm anybody if you don’t agree with him. My kind of guy.

JiangxiDad on August 30, 2007 at 11:50 AM

The fact that you used an entire class of people (Christians) to legitimize some ‘justice’ of ONE person’s inappropriate slander about another person leads me to believe that the fact that Christians (as a whole) bother YOU (personally) as an atheist is the spoon full of sugar.

My point is atheists have to be militant these days to feel relevant. They can no longer remain smuggly indignant in their self riteous (sp?) rants – they must conquer with their belief in NOTHING. It won’t be long until you have a church and ask for donations to spread your belief in nothing. How would that be better than the ‘evil Christians’ handing out their own medicine to the sick?

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM

My point is atheists have to be militant these days to feel relevant.

I wish you didn’t see the need to characterize someone else’s thoughts in a way that benefits your ideas (the idea you’re putting forth is: “Atheists are irrelevant”).

they must conquer with their belief in NOTHING.

That blows a hole right through the heart of the “it takes more faith to be an atheist to be a Christian!” argument, doesn’t it? It doesn’t matter. You think atheists suck no matter what they do or don’t do, right?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM

I have no problem calling out stupid Christians, but it’s stupid to say that just because some Christians do that that the rest of us agree with or even like it.

Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I’m not saying that you agree with it or even like it. I’m just saying that it doesn’t bother you too much when Christians do it. You have bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I’m curious why the Modonna with a napkin over her head is even remotely considered art.

I think the person who made the statue used in this manner would be offended.

Miss_Anthrope on August 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Loundry, you may have to clarify some things for me here. I’m not getting your argument, other than accusing others’ of saying atheists suck (which I don’t see either).

Miss_Anthrope on August 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM

As I read this, Luke Chap 12 Verse 4 – 10 in the Bible last night, I had a feeling I would be quoting it today. I actually thought it was going to be something to do with the so called “blasphemy challenge” crowd, till I read this.

Luk 12:9
But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Luk 12:10
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Well said. whenever Hitchens writes or speaks, it is always about himself. “Pride,” Satan loves pride because God dislikes it so.
It just saddens me to see a Soul, so lost.

abinitioadinfinitum on August 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM

The Mary in a burkha thing doesn’t bother me. If people don’t take a stand against islam then this may be a realistic result. Sharia would require either the covering or destruction of such religious symbols. Probably the latter. I take it as more of a wakeup call than an insult. Osama bin Jesus is waaaaay more of an insult to Osama than it is to me. I’m sure there will be another death fatwa issued any day now because of it. If you want to insult me put Olby up on the cross. Just don’t blame me if I set fire to it (with him on it) in protest. :)

Guardian on August 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Loundry, you may have to clarify some things for me here. I’m not getting your argument,

A Christian criticized Hitchens for “characteriz[ing] someone else’s thoughts in a way that benefits [Hitchens's] ideas”, and I think that is very hypocritical because Christians do that to atheists all the time. It’s a case of, “You can dish it out, but you can’t take it.”

other than accusing others’ of saying atheists suck (which I don’t see either).

Miss_Anthrope on August 30, 2007 at 12:29 PM

I’m sorry, you’re right. Christians aspire to be atheists because Christians think that atheists rule the universe.

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Mary, the mother of Jesus, more than likely covered her head and part of her face in public, which was the custom two-thousand years ago in Palestine.

Christians that have a relationship with Christ are actually spiritual enough and have seen enough of of this kind of trash to simply pay no attention to it, and possibly pray that the twit creating this stuff finds the truth in their life.

Muslims on the other hand mistaking the worse human behavior possible for spirituality would go insane if the same type of treatment was displayed of Mohammad.

This artist is a coward.

Hening on August 30, 2007 at 1:16 PM

My point is atheists have to be militant these days to feel relevant.
I wish you didn’t see the need to characterize someone else’s thoughts in a way that benefits your ideas (the idea you’re putting forth is: “Atheists are irrelevant”).

I was wondering if you were going to pick up on that hypocritical statement. I thought about making it more obvious, but I know that most atheists are pretty smart – so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

As for the idea that ‘atheists are irrelevant’, that’s a personal opinion because even if they are right, it doesn’t matter (hence they are irrelevant).

The funny thing is that I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I use my intelligence to explore more things. The more I explore, the more I realize I DON’T know. These atheists are typically intelligent, and they can’t figure out why, since they are smart and ‘know everything’, other people still believe in a higher power.

Of course not one of these smart people have ever PROVEN that God does not exist – they just ‘know’ it. AND THEY INSIST THAT YOU AGREE.

I point to eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ as evidence. You can believe what these people say they saw or not. You can interpret what these people say they saw anyway you want. But you can not deny that the Bible is the most popular book in the world, in the history of the world. That is something that the well read atheist book worms can’t come to terms with.

Hitchens is already asking for donations and in return, he’ll let you read his over-reaching book attempting to convert the world to his religion of atheism.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I was wondering if you were going to pick up on that hypocritical statement. I thought about making it more obvious, but I know that most atheists are pretty smart – so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Are you saying I should not have taken you seriously? Or perhaps this is merely damage control? It’s hard to tell on a message board like this one.

As for the idea that ‘atheists are irrelevant’, that’s a personal opinion because even if they are right, it doesn’t matter (hence they are irrelevant).

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

If atheists really as irrelevant as you claim them to be, then why did you waste your time criticizing Hitchens for his indiscretion?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 1:42 PM

Yeah this crap was “edgy” like fifty years ago.
Now its lame. Where’s her “A” game?
The whole “artistic” community is suffering from a lack of imagination and creativity. Way too much group-think out there.

Iblis on August 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Another couple of pieces of art designed to offend Christians. Yawwwwwwwwn.

crazy_legs on August 30, 2007 at 2:29 PM

If atheists really as irrelevant as you claim them to be, then why did you waste your time criticizing Hitchens for his indiscretion?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 1:42 PM

My actual comment had less to do with his atheism and more to do with disappointment concerning his attack on an innocent DEAD woman who spent her life helping others so that he could sell his book. Dancing on graves is not something that makes anyone look good (atheist or not). But I don’t know Hitchens too well and it seems as though he’s quite fond of the practice (though I wouldn’t necessarily attribute the vile practice to the entire cult of atheism).

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

The bottom line is he is speaking for someone who can’t speak for themselves in a way that benefits him and slanders her. He wouldn’t do it if she could speak for herself. Not too classy.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 2:48 PM

I gotta disagree that this is a typical “brave” artist.
I saw this link at Tim Blair’s.
Quotes
Last night Queensland lawyer Ms Bracks told The Daily Telegraph her double portrait was not meant to compare Jesus with bin Laden, but was a commentary on the way the terror leader was treated in the media.
…snip…
Describing him as a “common criminal”, Ms Bracks made the bizarre assertion bin Laden – whose whereabouts are unknown – should be extradited and put on trial.

So in other words, it’s a comment on contemporary “journalism” and not on bin Laden.
Now that’s brave (not “brave”), I mean, sure today’s “journalists” are punks, but they have absolutely no problem lying and distorting to get their view out, so look for stories about the artist that show that she actually likes John Howard and other equally damning factoids.

Veeshir on August 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Oh, I should probably provide the Tim Blair link.
So I will.

Veeshir on August 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM

My actual comment had less to do with his atheism and more to do with disappointment concerning his attack on an innocent DEAD woman

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

If atheists are irrelevant, then why were you concerned about his attack?

Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Everything I’ve read about what she wrote implies that she was struggling with her faith, not abandoning it.

What part of “I have no faith” or ‘God doesn’t exist’ don’t you understand?

Of course not one of these smart people have ever PROVEN that God does not exist – they just ‘know’ it. AND THEY INSIST THAT YOU AGREE.

So you believe nothing in science has contradicted Genesis? The truth is your God has been proven to not exist (you seem to have chosen to ignore the evidence), the concept of a God has not been proven to not exist because it is impossible, similarly to how it is impossible to prove there are invisible aliens floating 1000 feet above the Pacific Ocean.

But you can not deny that the Bible is the most popular book in the world, in the history of the world. That is something that the well read atheist book worms can’t come to terms with.

ThackerAgency on August 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM

That doesn’t change the fact your God doesn’t exist. And when you have to result to logical fallacies to bolster your point you know you’ve gotten desperate.

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Of course not one of these smart people have ever PROVEN that God does not exist – they just ‘know’ it. AND THEY INSIST THAT YOU AGREE.

So you believe nothing in science has contradicted Genesis? The truth is your God has been proven to not exist

Dude, you just proved his point.

crazy_legs on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Soooo tolerant and sooooo brave
I’m being reeeespectfulll

(being droned by left wing proles)

Defector01 on August 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Dude, you just proved his point.

crazy_legs on August 30, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I proved his point? Because I didn’t waste my time detailing the faults of Genesis in this failing post? How about a few things science directly contradicts: 1) The Garden of Eden didn’t exist 2) There was no “great flood” 3) The Tower of Babel story comes straight from mythology et cetera et cetera.

But if you truly believed in any of that stuff I wasn’t going to convince you anyway, you just “know it.”

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM

This is highly offensive. I’m ever so weary of my Christianity being mocked.

I dare this “artist” to be as cutting edge to present Mohammed and the koran in a bottle of piss.

doingwhatican on August 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Nonfactor, I am sincerely curious, what is your scientific background?

Snidely Whiplash on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Christian mobs worldwide riot in 5…6…7…8…9…

MadisonConservative on August 30, 2007 at 10:14 AM

hehe

- The Cat

MirCat on August 30, 2007 at 8:45 PM

Nonfactor-

How about a few things science directly contradicts?

Science doesn’t contradict your examples, because they are not in its realm.

The Garden of Eden is a symbol for the preconscious bliss of the animal.

The Tower of Babel is the Hebrews’ scorn for the hubris of the ziggurats of Mesopotamia.

The Great Flood may have been a memory of the eruption of Santorini in the Mediterranean, which likely caused a tsunami around the coasts, as well as the far greater flood in the Baltic region many centuries before.

Each story was not meant, by the Hebrews, to be taken literally -as their Christian offshoots tend to interpret them. (How can you take poetry literally without distorting it into lame prose?)

They’re metaphors and lures, with instinctually-vital warnings based on primal human dreads and transcending aspirations.

The first book of the Bible has two completely different stories of the creation. One abstract (“In the beginning was the Word…”) and one personal (“Adam and Eve“).

Only when people forgot the original uses of these stories (to teach moral lessons, not historical facts) have they become caricatures of their true intent.

Eden is immaterial; the “Fall” into self-consciousness and the resulting decisions about morality and the knowledge of mortality is very material. To our survival. *

And, bringing it all back to the topic at hand -of Mohammad’s iconoclasm:

Anything Islam teaches was pilfered poorly from the Bible, and then distorted further by the malignant personality of an art-hating, anti-poetic pedophile.

Psalms and Proverbs are ten thousand mental years ahead of anything Mohammad ever dreamed of.

The Bible is a collaborative work of imaginative art.

The Koran, its parody.

___________________________________________________________

(* “The Dragons of Eden” is a good counterweight book to the Garden variety.)

profitsbeard on August 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Nonfactor on August 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM

I proved his point?

Do you even know what his point was? His point was that Atheists “just know” that God does not exist and insist that you agree with them. Your counterpoint was you touting Atheism… and insisting that we agree with you.

I know that Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally, despite what you think about people who actually believe there’s something more than this life. It’s pretty depressing to think that this life is as good as it’s ever going to get (and I do know. I went through an extended period of agnosticism until I had my own spiritual re-awakening a few years ago. I hadn’t realized at the time how angry and depressed I was).

profitsbeard on August 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

crazy_legs on August 31, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Do you even know what his point was? His point was that Atheists “just know” that God does not exist and insist that you agree with them. Your counterpoint was you touting Atheism… and insisting that we agree with you.

The thing is his “point” was a straw man. Atheists have never claimed to “just know” God doesn’t exist, it’s the religious who claim to “just know” their God is real.

I know that Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally, despite what you think about people who actually believe there’s something more than this life.

Many Christians do believe it is supposed to be taken literally, and if it isn’t literal then there is no original sin, if there is no original sin then there is no need for a savior. If Genesis isn’t real, your God isn’t real.

Nonfactor on August 31, 2007 at 3:25 PM