The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) created a short documentary about the experience of Penn State student/artist Joshua Stulman, whose “Portraits of Terror” art exhibit was censored by the university because it satirized Islamic terrorism.
If only he’d mocked Christianity everything would’ve been fine.
A release about the doc said:
“Joshua Stulman’s art exhibit was censored not once but twice: first because administrators didn’t like what it had to say, and later out of fear that violence would ensue if his artwork were shown on campus,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “This should be totally unacceptable in the United States. Instead, censorship like this is an all-too-common occurrence at our colleges and universities…
Three days before “Portraits of Terror” was to debut at Penn State, he was told that his exhibit was canceled because, among other things, it “did not promote cultural diversity.” Although Penn State President Graham Spanier eventually overturned this decision, the exhibit was never presented at Penn State. A later exhibition planned at Gratz College in Philadelphia was canceled for fear of violence.
Van Helsing of Moonbattery writes:
Penn State art graduate Joshua Stulman can’t say he didn’t get any knowledge for his tuition dollar. He learned quite a bit about the difference between a free society and one run by progressives…
October 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Sounds like we "Americans" have been demoted to "dhimmi" status. See excellent article from today in Catholic Exchange by Daniel Pipes.
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/05/134989/
Thanks for relaying this article.
October 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm
"A later exhibition planned at Gratz College in Philadelphia was canceled for fear of violence."
It's time to bring the troops home, while they were kicking butt overseas the enemy infiltrated our nation and has won. It's only a matter of time before urban enclaves where sharia law is paramount will be established (already a done deal in the UK). After that look for the growing influence of Islamists in every facet of our lives.
Prepare to pay the jizyah or convert.
October 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm
"A later exhibition planned at Gratz College in Philadelphia was canceled for fear of violence."
To quote a trite and hackneyed phrase:
The terrorists really have won, haven't they?
October 5, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Yeah "dhimmitude" was horrible! Letting Christians have citizenship and freedom of religion as log as those with incomes paid relatively fair taxes. Probably not mun worse than the christians would have done. Maybe slaughter the innocent Muslim men and spare the old and women and children? They did not spare the women and children during the crusades like the Muslims did.
Stop reading pseudofactual polemic garbage. It is designed to sell copies, not educate
October 5, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Anonymous, the status of dhimmitude exists in the present day, check out the situations for Christians in Egypt and Saudi Arabia for starters. The Crusades are ancient history, your argument falls apart unless you have something more recent to cite.
In addition, even if your fantasies regarding Muslim supremacy were correct I'd object to second class citizenship just on the principle of wanting something better for my children.
October 5, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Man, where is the "recommend comment" button when you want one?
Thumbs "up" for Subvet… jpac
October 5, 2010 at 11:26 pm
So what? If you want to criticize the interpretations of islam found in Saudi or Iran I will be the first to join. You.
But I am educated enough to knowbrhe difference between them and the tenets of Islam.
But I can't force you to be well informed, you have the right to be so.
October 6, 2010 at 3:47 am
Anonymous (Oct. 5, 2:25 PM): did the Muslims respect Christian women and children in the era of the crusades?
For the answer, try reading the eyewitness account of the Muslim conquest of Acre, May 1291, in _The "Templar of Tyre"_. I'll help: see pp. 101-117. Here is a quotation: "That day was terrible to behold. The ladies…and the cloistered maidens…came fleeing through the streets, their children in their arms, weeping and despairing, and fleeing to the sailors to save them from death. And when the Saracens [Muslims] came across them, one seized the mother and another the child, and carried them from place to place, and separated them from each other. Once there was a quarrel between two Saracens over a woman and she was killed by them; and another time a woman was led away captive, and the infant at her breast was thrown to the ground where the horses trampled on it, slaying it thus. There were some women who were pregnant and who were caught in the press of the flight and suffocated and died, and the life in her womb died with her." (p. 113)
Or this: "Know, fair lords, that no one could adequately recount the tears and grief of that day. The pitiful sight of the little children, tumbled about and disemboweled as the horses trampled them…! There is no man in the world who has so very hard a heart that he would not have wept to see the slaughter. …Even some of the Saracens [Muslims], as we learned afterwards, had pity on these victims and wept." (p. 116)
And so on. When the Christians finally offered to surrender, the Muslims entered their fortress and began to rape women and boys (Muslim and Christian sources both agree on this). Enraged, the Christians fought back, threw out the rapists, and resisted to the death.
Or check out what Muslims did to Christians in Edessa, on Christmas Eve, 1144. Or in Antioch, in 1268. Or Tripoli, 1289. Or Constantinople, 1453. Or…but the point is clear: Muslims have slaughtered Christians not just as often, but more often, than the reverse.
Read a little history, Anonymous. Don't rely on the old politically-correct stereotypes. They don't stand up to the sources.
Oh, and by the way: dhimmitude is an inferior status in which Muslim rulers "protect" Christians and other conquered people (from whom, I wonder?) by taxing them at 50%, denying them civil rights and freedom to worship openly, and holding them in a status that may be abrogated at Muslim whim–a terrifying fate. Read Bat Ye'or, _The Dhimmi_, if you're interested in learning the truth about dhimmi status.
October 6, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I remember several years ago an"artist" displayed a crucifix in a flask of urine, and the liberal media defended his right to "express" himself. No doubt there is a double standard.
October 6, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Muslims are forbidden from killing innocents and they did not slaughter CITIES full of innocents like the christians did.
Anyway, That was not the main point.
October 6, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Are you kidding? Read the book b the person who made up the term to sell more books trashing islam? Any hope of an unbiased look at facts is lost on you.
Let's not criticize the governments of the Muslim world by makin things up that aren't true. They have plenty of other factual things to be criticized on
October 7, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Ok so this is a free speech issue, but shouldn't he be using a little bit of common sense too?? What institution would embrace such a taboo and explosive subject, especially when the people he is portraying in his artwork threaten with a terrorist attack??
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you necessarily SHOULD. I don't think infuriating Muslims and Islamic extremists is helping anybody… it certainly wouldn't help end the fighting in Muslim countries!