Pope In Drag Yanked From Italian Art Exhibit
Organizers of an exhibition on the relationship between homosexuality and art said Wednesday they were removing a controversial sculpture depicting Pope Benedict in drag.
The exhibit drew protests from the Catholic Anti-Defamation League, which threatened to seek charges against the organizers for defaming a head of state.
The group expressed outrage at “the vulgar offence against Christ’s vicar and the feelings of Roman Catholics,” the group said in a statement.
The sculpture, titled “Miss Kitty,” shows the Pope in a blond bob wig wearing nothing but a stole, a pair of panties and thigh-high stockings. (365Gay.com)
If these folks really want to be “avant-garde” and “free [themselves] from the dogmatic and ecclesiastic censors”, let them do the same with Islam’s Prophet Muhammed. Of course insulting people who’ve already shown no problem with removing the heads of their detractors would require far more testicular fortitude than these folks are capable of. This is the kind of cowardly and juvenile behavior which makes much of the “speak truth to power” fringe of the Left so contemptible. As for CADL, thank God we have the First Amendment in this country which guarantees the rights even of those whom we may vigorously disagree with. Perhaps Italy should take notes because head of state or not, nobody deserves this kind of ‘protection’ through force of law.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Original post by Average Gay Joe [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Pope In Drag Yanked From Italian Art Exhibit — July 17, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - July 17, 2007
This post is excellent! It clearly indicates myopia. Like the Islamists that balked at cartoons of The Prophet, you are balking at a piece of art critiquing the Pope. And, yet, you do not see the similarity. Fascinating.
And, by the way, one does not need to be “left wing” to critique the Pope. One just needs to be Catholic. And why you would ask Catholics to demean important religious figures from other faith traditions is certainly not beyond me. In fact, it shows that you are akin to the Pope, whose honor you weakly attempt to protect and who has called you intrinsically disordered and evil, the latter also being a claim of the Islamists. Oh, and some important GOP folks, to boot. (Gotta raise those funds after all….)
Comment by jimmy — July 17, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - July 17, 2007
If you are opposed to demeaning important religious figures, jimmy, why are you supporting the display of this statue?
Furthermore, jimmy, your moral relativism in trying to equate what the CADL is doing with the riots, destruction of property, death threats, and violence practiced by the Islamists you support indicates the highest level of myopia.
In your case, jimmy, the Pope is absolutely correct; you are inherently disordered and evil, as is demonstrated by your attempt to hide your irrational antireligious bigotry behind your sexual orientation and you insistence that all gay people must agree with you.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 17, 2007 @ 8:52 pm - July 17, 2007
This post is excellent! It clearly indicates myopia. Like the Islamists that balked at cartoons of The Prophet, you are balking at a piece of art critiquing the Pope. And, yet, you do not see the similarity.
Jimmy, you’ll have to pardon my myopia. I fail to see the similarity.
Or did I miss the part where Catholic mobs riot worlwide and threaten beheadings?
Comment by Robert — July 17, 2007 @ 9:42 pm - July 17, 2007
How “myopic” of me then, Jimmy, to criticize the CADL as well for suggesting a penalty that we in the United States would find highly objectionable. The First Amendment guarantees the rights of even idiots who know nothing else in life other than how to be crass. Now when B16 issues a fatwa to have the heads removed of the ‘artists’ in question, perhaps you’ll have something. Until then, however, the only one who appears to be “myopic” here is you since you seem to be completely unable to follow a simple point. Criticism of the Pope or other Church leaders is one thing, yet this goes beyond that.
Comment by John — July 17, 2007 @ 10:13 pm - July 17, 2007
Heh. Islamists didn’t *balk* at cartoons of the Prophet.
I don’t think this sort of display should be illegal, but I do think that the people who do such things should ask themselves why they *don’t* do something similar with the Prophet.
If they want to make a statement that matters, they really ought to make one about a religious figure that isn’t *safe*.
Comment by Synova — July 17, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - July 17, 2007
Someone should create an “art” exhibit involving - oh, I don’t know - a Koran, a naked gay man and a sign that says “Religious Tolerance.” (I’m making this up as I go along.)
Then they should get an NEA grant and show it off in a major city museum.
Then we’ll see how “tolerant” these Islamists are.
Also - if CAIR demands that this “exhibit” be removed, will the ACLU oppose them?
Just askin’…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 17, 2007 @ 11:31 pm - July 17, 2007
There is a similarity. Average Gay Joe finds the concept of the piece distasteful, and so do I. And Muslims find negative portrayals of Mohammad distasteful.
And that is where the similarities of your asinine comparison end. because, as you see, all Joe, or I, or the residents of Milan have done is to voice our objections.
Muslims on the other hand have rioted, destroyed property, committed arson, and injured and killed people.
The fact that you even compared the two shows an astounding level of ignorance.
Comment by Will — July 18, 2007 @ 7:30 am - July 18, 2007
As far as the “artwork” goes. It sounds extremely childish and cliche. Much like what passes for art in America nowadays.
Comment by Will — July 18, 2007 @ 8:07 am - July 18, 2007
It´s about time that there is an expression of outrage on the part of a christian group. Islamists have expressed violent outrage over a cartoon and a Koran supposedly flushed down a toilet. They want respect from christians yet they don´t respect things christian. Before any of the aforementioned incidents they occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for 40 days and used the high altar to cook their meals, tore pages from missals and bibles to use for toilet paper. All of this with nary a peep of outrage from christians or muslims. No imam nor muslim head of state apologized for the desecration of a christian holy site.
Comment by Roberto — July 18, 2007 @ 10:25 am - July 18, 2007
What do we need to put things back into balance: less violence from Muslims? or to start having violence from Christians?
I’d think I’d prefer the first one. But either way, things are clearly out of balance. There is ONE religion today where some of the major branches solicit actual violence and the others are too scared to object: Islam.
jimmy’s comments, meanwhile, are just Theater of the Absurd. Clearly, jimmy kint reed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 10:47 am - July 18, 2007
Presumably because the Pope is an important figure in their culture and in their lives, while Islam does not have any immediate impact on them. It’s the same reason writers write about their relationship with their parents, and not about their impression of the relationships in other people’s families. It’s not because they’re scared of criticizing one target — it’s because one target means something to them and another doesn’t.
Comment by JonboyDC — July 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - July 18, 2007
I think it’s interesting that so many here find it offensive for a man to be depicted as a woman. What does that say?
Would it be similarly offensive if a woman were depicted as a man?
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - July 18, 2007
I know this is probably fruitless, but what was the point of this silly display? That the “artist” doesn’t approve of the Pope doing what he’s supposed to do, defend orthodox Christianity against “inclusivity” and other such nonsense? And if so, why that particular depiction?
Arteests are the stupidest of the stupid.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 18, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - July 18, 2007
I think it’s interesting that so many here find it offensive for a man to be depicted as a woman. What does that say?
It says that “misogyny” is a meaningless charge when liberals throw it, given that they see it everywhere — except in themselves.
A mere glance at the details of the exhibit makes that obvious.
The sculpture, titled “Miss Kitty,” shows the Pope in a blond bob wig wearing nothing but a stole, a pair of panties and thigh-high stockings.
In other words, the Pope is being portrayed as a prostitute in clothing, posture, and title (remember “Gunsmoke”).
Now, Chase, to demonstrate your position, please state clearly here that you would have no trouble whatsoever or not be in the least offended if a woman who you held in high regard being portrayed as a prostitute in a sculpture named after a famous madam.
But, then again, since leftist Democrat gays see no problem with calling successful women names like “Pouty Brown Sugar”, it should not be surprising if you aren’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pm - July 18, 2007
I’d like to see 2 things from a lefty artist / exhibition / magazine, before lefties pontificate (so to speak) on this one any further:
1) Susan B. Anthony depicted in leather, chaps, tattoes and piercings as if she were that type of prostitute for men;
2) Mohammed or some other key Muslim figure, say Ayatollah Khomeini, depicted in leather, tattoes in piercings as if he were that type of gay male prostitute.
Artists and lefties: Until you are brave enough to bash everyone equally, your posturing is meaningless. We, the people (if I may be so bold) know that you are gutless, because you only ever bash the safe targets.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 18, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - July 18, 2007
I think your interpretation says more about you than it does about the sculpture itself. While I haven’t seen it, nothing in the description you offered would lead me to believe that the intention of the work is to depict the Pope as a prostitute.
And while I can only speak for myself, I’m hardly sensitive to Muslim piety. Which is why I’ll say it: F**k the Ayatollah. He’s a conservative lunatic. (a bit of redundancy there)
Comment by Chase — July 18, 2007 @ 8:26 pm - July 18, 2007
Chase, we’ve seen Mike Nifong; we know full well that once Democrats like you start on something, facts and reality become quite secondary to your prejudices.
In short, you made your comment to accuse us of misogyny; now, in order to not look like a complete idiot, you’re denying that making a statue of someone dressed like a prostitute and naming it after a prostitute doesn’t mean that they’re representing a prostitute.
Unfortunately, your avoidance is doing the exact opposite of what you intended.
F**k the Ayatollah.
Which one?
“Ayatollah” is a generic title in Shi’a Islam, and in fact refers to numerous scholars who have reached a certain level.
In short, your insult is meaningless; it doesn’t refer to a specific person, and the title it references could be numerous people. What’s your point?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2007 @ 1:57 am - July 19, 2007
What do you think the “artwork” is trying to say, Chase?
Personally I think that it’s going for the cheap reaction. Some people think that art is supposed to evoke emotional responses. The easiest, the cop-out, is to evoke offense.
Second theory… it’s supposed to repel the masses. Some people think that art that is too accessible isn’t really art. Vastly popular artists such as Kincade (?) get categorized as not creating *real* art. (Sort of how vastly popular genre fiction isn’t considered literature.) So “art” is in some respects exclusive by definition (if you go in for that sort of thing.) By repelling the masses, by offending them, exclusivity (art) is created in the cheapest way possible.
It lets some people think that they are better than other people who don’t “get” what the artist was trying to do. If poor people put their noses up at velvet Elvises we’d see them displayed in trendy galleries.
Comment by Synova — July 20, 2007 @ 1:40 am - July 20, 2007