When people say destroying a work of art is good

I am in Mexico. There was a museum display where, among many images, there was one in particular that offended some people. It was a drawing. It was similar to a popular catholic image, but instead of the Virgin Mary, it showed a naked Marilyn Monroe. I saw it. Thought it was interesting. Then I found out some people had broken into the museum, and ripped the image to shreds. They were detained in jail for about 1 day, and then they were released.

A few days later, the news said in their "call and vote" poll that 80% of the people here thought it had been a good thing.

80% of the people in my state said it was a good thing that a work of art was destroyed.

This distressed me.

Then the ArchBishop (Or some such high-ranking official from the church) said that it was ok, that he was glad that they had done that. It just sounds wrong. I talked to some people who are devout catholics(and some who aren't), and they too say it was totally justified.

But it was not pornographic. It was just Marylin Monroe.

Their justification is that if someone offends something very dear to you (Even if it is expressed in a work of art), that gives you the right to go and retaliate to that person. Even to destroy the image.

Some people I spoke to think that the work of art should have never been created. That the artist knew that was going to happen. That you must know who your art is for.

Some people who think of themselves as more "liberal" say that both parties were wrong. That they don't agree but think it was totally justified.

I still haven't found someone who agrees that it was wrong to rip the image apart, but not wrong to paint it.

What are your thoughts on this?

Am I insane?

There is just something... very sad... about a work of art being destroyed....

And something very wrong... about people saying that it is ok.