I saw an interesting story on the news the other day.

A man in New York has made a life-size, anatomically correct, crucified Jesus out of pure chocolate. He had plans to show it in a gallery during the week of Easter, but (of course) the backlash from the fundamentalist Christian community caused the gallery to cancel the exhibit.

Here's the funny thing: I took one look at this chocolaty Jesus and thought "Wow! What a brutally simple concept! It so effectively lampoons how Christian holidays have been warped into bizarre amalgamations of worship and consumerism! How ironic that the groups up in arms over 'My Sweet Lord' are really only seeing what most of America sees when they think of Easter: chocolate."

The artist's (paraphrased) interpretation of his work, according to a CNN interview: "I just wanted to associate Jesus with a taste." :|

Lame. I liked my interpretation a lot better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6509127.stm

I bet the Christians didn't want it on display because it shows Jezus had tiny equipment...

Anyway! Jezus candy? I could bite his head off :D.

Havoc

Wow, interesting story.
I'm starting to get the fellling Havoc has something against Jesus....

BTW thats in my sig.

Well, Havoc is an atheist, and naturally would have to choose the Liar or Lunatic side of the Trilemma. To be honest, that chocolate Jesus sounds like a great Easter thing.

Sounds like the time in Curb Your Enthusiasm when Larry David ate the Nativity scene, specifically the baby Jesus (Which was a cookie). Even more hilarious since he's Jewish.

Come to think of it, it's doubly more hilarious for a Catholic, considering we eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood weekly.

I read something about this too, and as a matter of fact, this artist was on the Opie and Anthony show today. They actually had him face off against Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, and try to defend his views on Catholicism and Christianity. It was quite entertaining to listen to, since the artists honestly did not sound convincing at all, and Bill Donohue was battering him with accusations of blasphemy left and right.

Personally, I think the idea of creating a nude, bald Jesus is indeed insulting to the Christians and Catholics. I mean, sure, artistic expression knows no bounds, but when it comes to portraying a religious figure in such a way, I feel that it's going a little to far. Also, in my opinion, it seems like this artist just did this for attention, like he just wanted to create something so outrageous that people would recognize him for it.

I hope you mean the one on his shoulders :p.

As an avid fan of the Mo' toons, I'd have to disagree. Of course, I have zero regard for Mo/Muhammad (as you can probably tell by my sig), but otherwise, I feel that freedom of speech is one of the West's fundamental values, and one worth defending. Regardless of what we think of an individuals speech, we should remember Voltaire's words of "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I disagree. Even countries with freedom of speech (which are fewer than you'd think) still have libel laws. Most artworks like this are done primarily to be controversial, rather than for any real artistic merit.

Back in 1999, the photographer Andres Serrano had an exhibition here in Melbourne that was controversial because he had a photo of a crucifix floating in urine. I, like most people, couldn't see what the big fuss was about until a very wise teacher suggested that I imagine it happening to something I care about. And, truthfully, I wouldn't want to see someone take a photo of a torah scroll bathed in urine. I probably wouldn't have a problem with a chocolate torah scroll but I certainly wouldn't call it art.

So I would suggest that people think before they make their decision and try to walk a mile in other people's shoes.

Well, it says in the Bible that he was beaten severely, and I'm pretty sure as a punishment, the Romans presented Jesus to the world naked, stripped of the holiness he had portrayed.

But still, maybe he could have given him a loincloth or something. ;)
Kudos to the guy that made it.

Well, Nate, you are not being held down and forced to watch the Torah scroll being submerged in piss. Similiarily, I don't have to watch Popetown or other anti Catholic stuff if I choose not to. The best censor is ultimately the remote control.

Definitely. I believe that most artists that create this type of "art", are more concerned with creating something controversial, in order to gain exposure, rather than creating something for the sake of self-expression.

I heard about this awhile ago. Apparently, the crucifix was supposed to appear "golden" when palced in the urine, as a sign of holiness, but I just found it ridiculous. I'm usually unaffected by these sorts of religious controversies, but when people do things like this it just annoys me. Is exposure honestly worth angering or offending an entire religion?

And I agree. I could definitely understand why such a thing offended people. It's basically just taking something you care for the most, and desecrating it before your very eyes. It's just an offensive way of getting attention, and I resent it.

I know that. But for some reason, Catholics and Christians find that sort of stuff offensive. Bill Donohue was actually yelling at the artist, saying that he should have at least given him the loincloth, as having portraying him naked was an indecent and blasphemic act. I personally don't see a problem with it, since, in the artist's point of view, he might've just done that to show us that Jesus was just human like all of us. Although, I would have also preferred it if he were clothed at least slightly :p.

Was about to say that. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. That's one of the biggest things that pisses me off. If you don't want to see something, then don't look at it. I don't like to see Jezus pinned on a cross everywhere I go either, but I'm not... okay wait, bad example.
I don't like to see the hairy ass of a construction worker as he bends over to grab a tool, but I'm not organizing crusades and speeches and lawsuits to get the guy to wear a decent belt, now am I? There are people who think differently then you in the world and by saying 'that should not be there because it insults our way of thinking' then you are implying that your way of thinking is the only right one, which is both untrue and self centered.
If there's something on TV that you don't want to see (apparently gay performance at the super bowl for example) then turn off your TV. If there's a song on the radio you don't like, turn off your radio. If someone writes a book you don't like, DON'T READ THE BOOK. Don't try to get this stuff banned or go protesting against it because it makes you look downright stupid, plus if you are going to ignore freedom of speech only when it suits you, don't expect people won't do it back to you.

Havoc

Even if you don't like what My Sweet Lord stands for(I think its just a bitching statue made by a Catholic guy who wanted to show his chops by working in a very funky medium) you've got to give it up for Cavallaro. That is a world class sculpture, on part with the Pieta or David on a technical level.
Oh, and Bill Donahue can go **** off and be eaten by bobcats, the sanctimous douchebag.

So if I start running around this forum yelling about how you're a rampant and disgusting tiger-expletive, you should welcome it as proof that this forum is a fair and equable soapbox for opposing views? Because you could simply just turn off your computer and ignore me.

Damn it, if that was a bit shorter, I'd defintiely quote it. Now that is the best reponse ever.

Well, he does **** tigers. As long as its consensual I really don't have a problem with it.
Hey, didja hear Mahmoud Icansayitbutirefusetotypeit is giving the British seamen back?
Cool.

For one I know you would never do that, since you are in fact a moderator around here. And secondly, no I wouldn't give two shits about what you have to say to me, except that it might make me smile when I read it. All you would be doing is tell the truth in a rather... angry way.

But to respond to the point you were attempting to make; If someone would, lets say, post a picture of that same construction worker's ass, as a topic on the forum and named it: BIG HAIRY ASS! LOOK! LAWLS! Then yea I think I'd avoid it... Point being that as long as you have the option to avoid something you have no right to complain. This chocolate jezus statue thing is not being pushed into anyone's face, no-one HAS to pay attention to it. It's not a must to stay alive or anything. It's not like this thing is bolted down in your bedroom and you have to look at it every time you go to bed and every time you wake up.
Everyone sees stuff in their lives which they wish they hadn't, get over it. You saw it, you hated it, now you can decide never to look at it again. For that very same reason I avoid looking at any pictures of pouching of tigers ect, if there's one thing that gets my blood boiling it's when I see pics like that. Sometimes I see them and get pissed off, but I click it away and am angry for a few minutes and go on. Why can't religious people do the same, hm?

Havoc

Well, the difference is that this thing was supposed to be displayed in a hotel, as well as an art gallery. So, if religious inidividuals were to go to this hotel or art gallery, it would be quite difficult not to notice it. Thankfully, both of the places now refuse to have the chocolate Jesus displayed, as the Catholic League as well as some other groups of religious inidividuals have been complaining.

Consensual bestiality is impossible, as a non-sapient animal cannot give true consent.As for Mahmoud Whackmadinejad, that was the first story in the whole topic. I also heard about their alleged confession. Sounds like a crock of crap. Like a human rights abusing Islamic fascist nation wouldn't force a fake confession out of infidels. Personally, if I were the UK right now, I'd tell them to give us back our sailors, no crap involved, or we will kick your nuclear arses.

It really wouldn't be that simple. The people of Iran regard their land and the bodies of water surrounding their land as "holy". When the sailors trespassed on their "holy" land, they, in a way, insulted them, I suppose (though, in my opinion, it seems ridiculous that they'd make such a big deal about it), so I suppose it's only fair that they apologize, despite how pointless it may be. Threatening them would only blow the entire issue out of proportion, and cause an unnecessary conflict.

Which brings me back to; why can churches have a naked jezus hanging on a cross above the altar, but when some artist doest it in the form of chocolate it's suddenly a big crime. If you're gonna play it like that then go and remove all those stupid jezus statues from the churches while you're at it. That's just being a hypocrite.

Havoc

Churches don't have nude statues of Jesus. He's usually covered by a loincloth of some sort in order to make the statues "decent". I've never in my life seen a nude Jesus statue displayed in a church.

Well, they could notice it, and then walk away. I mean seriously... okay, ultimately it was the hotel's/art gallerie's decision on wether or not it gets put up so they shouldn't be bitching about it anyways...

And why the hell are they getting so pompus over it anyways? Like tons have stated, they have a choice to look at it or not. They aren't really being forced to...

Okay sure, give them a friendly e-mail, or phone call telling them why you dislike it and then tell them why you think it should be taken down. Not get all pissy about it and throw a huge arguement... :nonono:

Man... I think this is just the mainstream "Look-at-me-I'm-trying-to-be-holy" kind of crap that people want to get recognition for. [/rant and upsetness over stupid people arguing.]

Eh, the tiger thing was just a handy example. I was trying to give an example of someone attempting to offend you.

But if you were a moderator, you'd close that thread pretty quickly so that other people weren't inflicted with the arseness.

If I had to some up my point, it would be this: freedom of speech is all well and good but there are limits. People who are trying to be controversial and offensive deserve what comes to them.

True, they're not being forced to look at it, but I suppose the thought
of it being there angers and/or offends them in some way. Plus, this entire controversy was started by a nobody who, more likely than not, wanted to create an art piece that would offend people in order to make his name known. So, I suppose, the fact that this was most likely just an attenion-getter would also cause people to wish it removed (despite the fact that wanting it remove would only make the artist more popular).

Well, the Catholic League doesn't usually respond well to things of this nature. They want stuff like this removed immediately, and they usually create a big fuss about it.

I completely agree with you. I believe that most of these people are only making a big deal out of this to draw attention to themselves in some poor attempt to be recognized for getting rid of something blasphemic. This entire thing is just a load of bullshit that should've been handled behind the scenes.

Definitely. This directly relates to people using hate speech. They believe that freedom of speech gives them the right to spew obsceneties in a hateful manner, singling out a certain group or culture, but they couldn't be more wrong. It is not supported by freedom of speech, because it is intended to directly offended a certain person or group of people. The same goes for this whole controversy. It does not fall under freedom of expression, because it was most likely created in order to directly offend others.

But what is hate speech anyway? How do you define this term? Is it hate speech to call Nazi's disgusting because of the Holocaust? That's singling out a single group or culture for mocking and derisement. Or saying that Branch Davidianism is a death cult, which is a pretty factual statement. Hate speech laws are ill defined forms of tyranny that are misguided at best, and motivated by fascists eager to censor criticism at worst.

Okay I re-read the article and I tried my best to find a reason these people are pissed off about this in the first place. The man made a statue of mister holy, shouldn't all religious people encourage this? But no, just because he's the only soul alive that actually dares to portray his crucifixion like it actually happened (NAKED) the statue should be removed? I read the bible and this is one of the parts I can remember almost best, jezus was going to be killed, he had to drag his own cross up a mountain, was STRIPPED DOWN NAKED, and was nailed to the cross and left to die for 3 days or so. It says it right there so why are all these churches screaming that he should be wearing a loincloth? Don't mind the horrible and cruel death sentence of this man having nails driven through his hands and feet and left there for days on end without food or water being picked apart by birds and only talking to the other two idiots hanging on crosses next to him, THIS GUY IS NAKED! QUICK! PUT A LOINCLOTH ON HIM BEFORE OUR CHILDREN SEE THIS! Seriously... does anyone have normal priorities these days?

Havoc

That's how it is in America. Soccermums are to blame.

Exactly what Havoc said... censorship isn't good for everything.

And I don't think this guy was trying to offend poeple. He probably didn't think of these far-fetched consequenses when he was making it. He was probably just trying to get into the Guiness book of world records, or Ripley's Believe it or not. ;)
Or possibly Jerry Springer. Every red-neck in America wants to do that...

Hm... I think we killed this topic... maybe it's time to find another good'n. ;)

Havoc: I want to clarify my position.

I agree with you that I don't get what the fuss is about in this case. But I still maintain that the Christians have a right to protest this if it offends them. That's why I brought up the example of Piss Christ as a similar issue where they had more than enough justification to be pissed off. Pun unintended.

EDIT: I've rejigged this thread to seperate it from the Current Affairs one.

Come on... Am I not the only one thinking this?

None of you are people!

Exactly. If Muslims can moan about stuff, why can't Christians?

Although some people would deny Muslims that right too...

But as we all know by now, muslims can turn very violent and demanding. I'm not saying any other group doesn't, but muslims tend to stick to together a whole lot more than other religious people.

Supreme Court just punked out and said they wouldn't rule on giving habeus corpus rights to captured "terrorist suspects". So long Bill of Rights and Constitution, it was nice knowing you.

Hate speech is anything that is intended to directly offend an individual for something they cannot control (i.e. race, religion, mental illness, etc.). However, calling the Nazis distusting because of the Holocaust is not a form of hate speech, as that wast something they could control. They chose to torture and kill thousands of Jews, so whenever someone calls their group a pack of animals, or monsters, they are completely justified in doing so. However, if someone to call any German a Nazi, that would be considered hate speech, since they would be attacking the entire because of the sins of just a single group.

And my apologies for typing this up so late. I was exhausted all day yesterday, and lacked the brain power to type anything intelligent up as a result :p.

To be fair, Muslims tend to be violent and demanding (and much more severely and frequently than Christians) because of the Qur'an's instructions, which they have been taught usually at an early age. I think making the comparison is a bit misguided, considering that Christianity is largely a peaceful religion, whereas Islam is a violent pseudoreligion and political ideology that is currently being looked at by the West through Chamberlainian glasses. Also, on the "hate speech" issue, most of the Nazis would have been killed had they not obeyed their orders. Does that make speaking against them "hate speech"?

If they didn't believe in committing such atrocities, they aren't real Nazis, so those typed of insults wouldn't apply to them now would they? After all, why would they take offense to such insults, if they were against the things they were forced to do? Would they not agree with the person who was bashing the Nazis, instead?

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

Do you really believe that? Have you never heard of the crusades? More recently, have you never heard of Christians who go round bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors who prescribe the morning after pill? The Army of God, Eric Robert Rudolph, various white supremacy groups... the list goes on.

On the other side, what about the many (MANY) Arabs and Muslims who believe in peace or don't care much about global politics but simply want to live their lives as best they can? What about Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat and the many others who have dedicated their lives to fighting the sort of belief system you blatantly assume all their people follow?

Stop and think before you make that sort of blanket statement again.