Mohammed Does Not Go To The Met...

...and the Met is worried they might end up going to Mohammed. Apparently the "image of Mohammed" controversy is a little too... explosive for some museums. Can't imagine why.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."

That's the safe play. It's a temporal version of Pascal's Wager: terrorism isn't certain, but the risk of offending people who might introduce some PETN-powered brushstrokes to "Starry Night" from the pallette of human innards is clearly higher than disappointing people interested in the history of art. Of course, it goes without saying that these concerns do not run equally towards all faiths.

Sigh. I suppose if Christians want parity in respect, we should be recruiting our own brigades of ax-swingers and splodeydopes, but I did a little reading and apparently our founder's view on disrespecting our creed was some p***y-a** nonsense about "turning the other cheek" (like that's going to strike fear into the hearts of infidels). And as far as I can tell, none of our sects have any proviso for a bevy of pliant virgins on higher planes in the event of pious detonation. So Jihad For Jesus is going to be an uphill climb, to say the least. Meanwhile, I guess we'll have to settle for the smug moral superiority of suffering figurative slings and arrows in both cheeks.

posted by Dave on 01.13.10 at 04:37 PM


I've got an idea for a deliciously transgressive piece called "Mohammed's penis in a jar".

Ha-ha! I said piece!

Harry Ballz   ·  January 14, 2010 6:52 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits