Niki Johnson does not seem to realize that the current Pope is named Francis but nevertheless, her piece of relevant “art” depicts Pope Benedict XVI illustrated via 17,000 condoms and is titled “Eggs Benedict.”
This is not, ultimately, about surface issues but about utter hatred of Christianity due to utter hatred of YHVH.
Why have so many besmirching depictions of Christian icons been funded, glamorized, popularized and praised by pop-culture, the media and politicians whilst even a hint of likewise actions focused on Muhammad, Islam, Muslims, the Qur’an/Koran, etc. are censored, condemned and violently reacted against by pop-culture, the media, politicians—and terrorists?
Islam also condemns contraception, perhaps Johnson will also depict Muhammad in condoms, the portrait will be hung in a museum and the
NYT will publish a photo of it.
The USA and other countries who have betrayed their Judeo-Christian roots are currently suffering from BSWS: Battered Stockholm Wife Syndrome. Terrorists are telling us who they are and why there are doing what they do and we tell them, “No, you are wrong! Our theologian-in-chief knows better!”
Christophobes know that they can slap Christians on the cheek since we will turn the other. Our reaction, when consistent with our scripture, will be to love, pray and speak.
See my section Unbelievers Compliment Christianity
Ask Charlie Hebdo, the Danish Mohammed cartoonists, the Draw Muhammad day participants what their experience has been? By the way: did you hear that President Barack Obama had an elaborate ceremony for the police officer of the law who saved people from being mass murdered by Muslim terrorists at the Draw Muhammad Day event? No! The officer who stopped terrorism in our own land was not even invited to have a beer with the POTUS.
The New York Times demonstrates the utterly myopic and shallow pseudo reasoning behind much of what occurs within pop-culture, the media and politics.
They adhere to sharia law by not publishing cartoons of Muhammad but they will publish anything and everything that besmirches Christianity in any and every form.
Phil Corbett is the NYT Associate Managing Editor for (lack of) Standards, he stated the following:
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.
Well, the NYT does have a “simple, unwavering formula”: if it even could be imagined to maybe perhaps offend any Muslim anywhere on the planet then it is censored but if it may if it even could be imagined to maybe perhaps offend any Christian anywhere on the planet then is it published.
Now, note that the alleged standard is that the NYT “really don’t want to gratuitously offend anyone’s deeply held beliefs.” Now, since what is and is not gratuitously is so unspecific then they can merely invent a reason or rather, an excuse, for claiming that it is not gratuitous and run with it.
Phil Corbett also noted:
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…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.
So, it is a case of thus saith the museum: museum officials consider a canvas full of condoms to be “a significant” mind you “artwork” and thus, it is so declared to be (and make sure that your public schools takes your kiddos to the museum to learn about high art).
Note the circular illogic in that “there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme” and we can know that because “the artist and the museum both say that it is not intended to offend people”—they said it, we believe it so, by golly, it must be true! Of course, maybe the primary intent was not to “offend or blaspheme” but that does not mean that it was not an intent.
In any case, the issue is that it is claimed that the piece of “art” is meant to raise awareness of sexual politics such as that condoms can help spread Aids in Africa (which, apparently, sexual morals cannot do). Well, in that case, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons could be viewed as having been attempts to integrate Muslims into French culture by introducing them to free speech, satire, etc.
Phil Corbett wrote that one reason to know that “there’s no indication that the primary intent of the portrait is to offend or blaspheme” is that “the very different reactions bears this out.” No, rather it is very different theologies that bear this out. The premise of Christianity is to love neighbor, enemies, those who persecute us, etc. The premise of Islam is submission to Allah (which is what “Islam” means as it does not mean “peace”) and to make non-Muslims submit via being conquered, being forced to live like second class citizens, etc.
Lastly, Phil Corbett seems utterly clueless of such facts as he notes:
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.
Wrong, there may be just as much outrage but Christians channel it differently as “the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).
BTW: the NYT should condemn Niki Johnson for wasting 17,000 condoms when they could have been sent to Africa.