The infamous "Piss Christ" comes to mind. Even more on point is the portrait of the Virgin Mary, surrounded by lacquered elephant dung and cutouts from pornographic magazines, that the Brooklyn Museum found worthy of display.
I'm going to guess that the LAT never editorialized against either of these. As NewsBuster and Times Watcher Clay Waters pointed out, the LAT's East Coast counterpart, the NY Times, editorialized in defense of both works of "art," while condemning the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
I have a sneaky suspicion that something similar has occured here. The LAT goes to bat for the religious feelings of those from a different country or culture, but wouldn't defend the similar sensibilities of those in its own country. If someone can point me to LAT editorials denouncing either of the offensive items that appeared in the USA, I'll be glad to admit my mistake.
Note: the LAT ends its editorial in writing:
Because Playboy clearly has poor judgment in these matters, let us offer a bit of unsolicited advice: If there is an upcoming issue featuring a scantily clad Fatima, trust us, it's a bad idea.
Fatima was a daughter of the prophet Muhammad. Does anyone imagine that in a million years Playboy would dare do such a thing?
