"12 'blasphemous' artworks censored or vandalized by angry believers"

I have written about this sort of thing in past. I don't necessarily want to go through it again but felt that the Religious News Service piece referred to in my post title was well worth taking a look at.

"12 'blasphemous' artworks censored or vandalized by angry believers"

It's sad that even a fraction of believers from various religions find it necessary to do this kind of shit.

Banned Books Week, September 24 - October 1, 2011

Feel free to say Fuck You to all the anti-intellectual zealots by reading. It's fun and educational. The odds are pretty good that no matter what book you pick some yahoo out there has tried to ban it. If you want to take a look at what books have been attacked by the narrow minded check out the American Library Association's pages on Banned Books. This year YouTube is also hosting a Banned Books channel.

I think it's also important to point out that any belief system, whether religious, political, or economic that relies on restricting or distorting information is weak and cowardly.

Think for yourself.

Read what you want.

Why does religion require censorship?

A recent post on Big Think posed the question "How Far can an Artist Go in a Religious Country?" I find the question far more interesting than Duggan's rather spineless non-answer. Why do religious people always seem to have tantrums about artwork that they don't like? Seems to me that it has little to do with the individual art works themselves. I see it as a sign of fear and weakness. Deep down perhaps these zealots realize there faith is rather pathetic. After all, they always complain that the art they seek to censor is critical of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn't it be assumed that it is a tacit admission that their beliefs are weak and unfounded? If their faith can withstand even the slightest criticism what can it be worth?

As for Duggan, I seriously doubt he would require an artist to make an "attempt at explaining the purpose behind his actions", if the work did not involve religious content/themes. I also doubt he would insist on "constructive rather than the destructive" forms of expression if it did not involve religion. So, I guess the answer is an artist can only goes as far as religious leash the most vocal zealots impose.

If religions or  religious people can't handle the exercise of free expression I suggest they withdraw from public life entirely. If they want to criticize or complain about other people's views that is, of course their right. However, banning and censoring expression is not their right. Anyone who thinks it is okay to coddle such people should be ashamed of themselves.