THE NEW YORK TIMES DEFINES WHAT ART IS

These cartoons are reproduced below in order to foster evil relations with the world wide Muslim community and to make a freedom of expression statement.... Keep in mind that the New York Times thought these cartoons too offensive to print. Below them is the obscene elephant dung spattered Virgin Mary that the New York Times did print, and on the same day that they ran an article condemning the Danish cartoons as too offensive.

All cartoons are available here, and only at that link (BTW his ISP is threatening him). Site is called Faith and Freedom. Go there, it's a great site and it is run by ex-Muslims. Take note that freedom loving Google, Yahoo, and all the rest of the search engines have pulled all links to the "offensive" cartoons, right after turning names of dissenters over to the Chinese of course. Below the Virgin Mary is a painting called Yo Mama's Last Supper which features a nude woman as Christ; you will have to blow it up to see clearly.






WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES CONSIDERS GOOD AND RESPONSIBLE ART is reproduced below. The dung is from an animal on the Endangered Species list called an elephant which makes it doubly OK for the Times. Again, keep in mind that the NYT ran this picture on the same day that they condemned the Danish cartoons as being offensive to Muslim sensitivities.

Below is an art du jour painting called Yo Mama's Last Supper, which is run in all the usual Left places and depicts the Christ as a nude woman. When shown in tax payer subsidized Brooklyn Museum (also a recipient of Red Cross 9/11 contributions) protesters showed up. All were thrown out by our liberal elites. Double standard, Anti-Christian Left, or just plain shitty art?