When the target was Christianity, the Times said that artists had an obligation to "challenge the public." When the target is Islam, the Times starts talking about respecting religious faith. As Tim Blair notes, Islam has earned that "respect" at the point of a gun.
"Times Changes," by Tim Blair in the Telegraph, September 14 (thanks to Anne Crockett):
The New York Times editorial of October 2, 1999, defends the display of Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ and Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary:
A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.
Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths.
Whatever happened to “challenging the public”? Or is that obligation rendered non-obligatory when a certain public responds to challenges by killing people?