Blasphemy in Context

Andrew Sullivan criticizes an advertisement by San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair recreating the Last Supper as, apparently, a gay bondage scene:

Utterly unnecessary, I'd say, and counter-productive to ensuring that events like Folsom can continue to thrive. And not even ballsy. Next year, guys: do a similar parody on a sacred Muslim scene, if you have the balls. Easy, cheap blasphemy impresses no one.

Unnecessary? Well, sure. But while I can understand why a lot of people would take offense, it makes sense for the Fair participants to parody a sacred Christian scene because they live in a predominantly Christian country. A similar parody of a sacred Muslim scene would be the actual "[e]asy, cheap blasphemy" because it wouldn't be responding to anything directly involved in the lives of the participants, but would rather be a broad shot at an entire religion that they have no direct involvement in. The degree to which Sullivan and others (James Kirchick comes to mind) include their distaste for Islam in seemingly unrelated issues is kind of obnoxious.

Comments

[Mireille]

I would also like to make the point that human beings (and really most living things) are not allowed in religious Muslim art...So there aren't any real famous Muslim paintings to parody. Come on, guys, didn't anybody else take AP Art History? Because to me, that seems like the most obvious point to make here...

[Mireille]

I would also like to make the point that human beings (and really most living things) are not allowed in religious Muslim art...So there aren't any real famous Muslim paintings to parody. Come on, guys, didn't anybody else take AP Art History? Because to me, that seems like the most obvious point to make here...