Absolutely not.

But again, the man represents a religious belief and he feels, which he's entitled to, that what was going to be displayed was offensive. Doesn't he have that right to feel the way that he does just as it's been advocated that some here have the right to feel that it's NOT offensive?

Like I said, DC, moralists have no place in an art gallery. Art exists neither above nor below morality, simply outside of it. And so long as art is exhibited in a gallery, just like pictures of Christ are restricted to a Church, I don't see a problem.

We're part of a board driven by the motto, "If you don't like what you read, don't read it," and so to deem a sculpture which we're only debating because an MSN article told us about it as "disgusting" seems uncharacteristic and unusual, to me.

Oh well.

Ahhh. But the originator of this post was the one who initially made an opinionated statement that "people need to lighten up" when his was the first opinion given on this.

As far as I'm concerned, that opened the door for others to voice their opinion.

Yeah, I know that; I meant I found your terming this sculpture as "disgusting" was surprising.

Also, I think a lot of the criticisms are far too quick to get to the "point" of the sculpture, and in doing so have ignored how incredibly-crafted it is in the first place. Look at the detail of those hands, the proportions of the body, etc.

(I realise DC was the only one to really acknowledge this, sort of, in his first post.)

What's really impressive here is that this was resolved without any violence or rioting from the Christian leaders of the world.

I agree. But i refrain from using it these days because of its sexual connotation.

By the way, one of the things I tell my classes is that I love Easter time because I always get to eat a chocolate Jesus - hollow or solid.

If that had happened, what would have been the difference between such "violence or rioting" on the organised religion's part and the term "terrorism"...?

Absolutely nothing.

Very ironic.

Frightening, even.

Yes, provocative.

You lost me. What's ironic/frightening?

Any religious leader that advocates the use of violence to show their dislike of something that may be offensive to their beliefs are no better than a terrorist.

Which is what is really frightening. And ironic, considering really naive, simplistic, all-encompassing lines from Pizzaboy such as Catholics as a "peaceful group".

How far would Kind Cardinal Egan have gone had the exhibition stayed? The article reports death threats (admittedly not from Egan himself) before the exhibition was pulled.

Capo, I very much enjoy your well thought out and intelligently worded posts, I really do. And I realize that calling the Catholic Church peaceful, in terms of it's entire history, was a poor choice of words. But I honestly feel that by today's standards they are peaceful, which by today's standards, makes them an easy target.

By the way, did anybody else think the subject referred to some new film in which a black guy played Jesus?

Yes, exactly. No religious leader here has made any threats of violence. I don't believe that if push came to shove on this issue that Cardinal Eagan would have advocated the use of violence to get the point across. And the result of this controversy being settled in a non violent and peacefull manner has proved that Pizzaboy was right.

What, that a peaceful religion has been attacked?

That was Pizzaboy's point, I think.

It's amazing how aggressive or violent an image can be deemed. But the threat of murdering the artist of that image seemed to outweigh any offense his work caused.

If there was no reason to believe any violence was going to come of this, why is it even a relief that no such violence happened? I feel relief when something that might happen doesn't. But it was a looming possibility, here, it would seem.

Or are you going to throw back to me the notion that those who had resorted to violence wouldn't have even been Catholic?

If that's the case, then why was it taken down? For pissing off some wannabe Catholics who threatened to kill a guy?

I viewed Pizzaboys statement as meaning that the Catholic religion as a whole was a peaceful religion and would not resort to violence. And because of their restraint from resorting to violence he may feel that people like this artist feel free to do and say whatever they want about the God of the catholic religion. I can't speak for him, but that is how I perceived what he said.

And no, I wouldn't throw back at you that those who may have possibly resorted to violence wouldn't have been catholic. It's quite possible that individual acts may have been taken by those who happen to be, or claim to be a practicing catholic.

I was speaking, and I believe that Pizzaboy was speaking, about the catholic religion as a whole, as a group represented by religious leaders.

No religion as a whole can be responsible when individuals who claim to be a part of that religion resort to violence on their own.

It's when the religious leader of ANY religion gets up on the pulpit, etc. and preaches to their people that violence is the answer to resolving that which they perceive as offensive.


That's when problems start.

You can't not believe in Jesus Christ. Or that's how I see it. More so, that he was not actually a messiah. Which I don't, obviously. I'm not forcing my beliefs upon you, nor should or is anyone upon me. I'm just mistified as to why you find the fact that the artist chose to show a nude Jesus so offensive.

And, I think you misread me on a daily basis. Don't get me wrong, I like you, despite or constant feuds. I'm sure you don't feel quite the same about me, and that's fine, I don't ask that you respect me. I'm not an easy person to get along with. I have an overly satirical view of things. I come off cocky due to an unusual sense of humor of things. I get that. But, what it comes down to, is you quite often misread me, mostly based on our stances of what is and is not acceptable to joke about. I, for one, think-no, actually, I know-that I do not disrespect other peoples religions. My attitude or verbal status may not always seem so. I know I cannot change your mind on whether or not I am inconsiderate of other beliefs, because I think once someone makes up their mind, they truly have. Close-mindedness... See, we're pretty much 100% on opposite sides of the political sphere. I will continue to think people "like you" are closed minded, and you'll probably continue to think people "like me" are closed minded. I can't change that, nor do I care to. The world simply was not designed for people like you and I to get along, hence our quarrels, but so be it, I'll try it anyways, and pitty arguments are merely a healthy part of a relationship.

I was just driving on down the road, coming home, and as I sat in my car, my mind trailed off. Somehow I came to the constant fascination of mine that is depression. People always complain about being unhappy, but god damn, wouldn't this be a horrible world without it? Without sadness and suffering, life would be meaningless and utterly pointless. We wouldn't value good moments or happiness without it. So I think a good fight among friends (if I can call us that) is perfectly normal and absolutely healthy.

But back to my initial thought before trailing off. I wouldn't say I disrespect other beliefs, because I live in my head, and I know how my thoughts function. I wouldn't tell someone what they can and cannot believe in. I respect all beliefs. I personally think that religion corrupts these beliefs by adding too many boundries and a system of near-rivalry, but that is just me. I'm not one to tell someone, "Go try your best to get excommunicated, and rejoice with me in a night of virgin sacrifice and intense rounds of pin the panties on the goat". I might lampoon religion, simply on the basis that I find major themes of this life endlessly amusing on a level of hilarity. They're just so repetitious, and almost menial and illogical when you put them into perspective. Not to say we should disregard them, just be able to laugh. And hey, I'm an offensive person. Big deal. We all are, mostly. There is no such thing as a nonoffensive human being. Some are just more offensive than others. But, to that measure, the most offensive are hard to offend on the basis that they find humor in so much. It's hard for me to explain, on the basis that you and I are programmed so differently.

What it comes down to is, you and I cannot judge each other at all. We've never met, and most likely never will on the basis of physical obsticles amongst all else. We have clearly two-dimensional, exaggerated impressions of one another. I know I respect other religions, I can just spot the obvious comical features of religion, as well as any other subject you might feel unspeakable.

I don't know what else to say, but I'm sure this will all just come to a major disagreement, so, whatever floats your boat.

You know, funny thing is, I asked my mother about an hour or two ago how she felt about this entire solution, and after a few minutes of discussing I said something about candy chocolate Jesus's, and then she said she'd never heard of such a thing in an obviously outraged tone, and some how we ended up in a debate of whether or not such a thing exists. She's still under the impression that it's something I've made up to win the initial debate. Or something like that.

You can speak for me anytime DC.

All I meant is that because the Catholic religion, as a whole, is peaceful in today's world, not the world of 500 years ago, that it makes them an easy target.

Looks to me the sculpturer needs recognition!
It's a shame when you have to go to this extreme to get it! Disgusted Shoot

You'd be very surprised at how I view "organized religion" itself. And don't be so sure that I don't agree with some of your posts.

No major disagreements on this anymore. You've made your case as I have made mine. And we both know where the other stands.

Besides, Bogey put in the good word for you, and that's good enough for me.

Damn!! I'm gone for the day, and I miss this great debate. It took me FOREVER to catch up with all the posts, and they've mostly been thoughtful and provocative.

As a practicing Catholic, I don't believe that Jesus' sexuality is something that needs to be flaunted. To me, His message was far more important than any other side of Him. On the other hand, He was a man, and that was very important, because He felt the same things we do, which led to his great understanding and compassion when it came to humans.

Am I offended by the statue? Well, maybe because I think it's ugly. Would I want to see it? Not really, probably because it's ugly. I don't care if it's supposed to be Jesus or George W. Bush, the chocolate statue of a man hanging from the rafters with his business dangling is maybe not my cup of tea.

Therefore, I would not protest it, but I wouldn't buy a ticket to go see it either. Censorship is a dangerous thing. It's always easy to point to something and say, WOW! That's so offensive, let's march and protest. Well, that's your right, as long as you do it within the law. But I personally support censorship of a different type - not looking or listening or reading whatever it is that offends me.

Isn't anybody an easy target? The media is probably the most powerful, most subtle form of fascism I can think of. It basically has the power to call the shots on anything. We're all puppets to the media.

And what do you mean by "today's standards"? What are you referring to, exactly? And what do you mean when you say you're "sick and tired" of people attacking Christianity? Who else has, and when? I wasn't aware there was a trend in attacks on Christianity of late.

Anyway, hypocrisy has a way of really upsetting me. I disagree with this, it's ludicrous. The whole thing is most discouraging.

Yeah... I'm amazing. Alright, well, cool. That's done with.



I don't know, I think he could've been a member of Motley Crüe.

Damn, too soon to be throwing one liners yet?

That's the best advice on this topic that I've seen yet. When it comes to these hot button issues, where something as personal as religion is concerned, we should just agree to disagree, and move on to something else.

That was about as insightful as this post, which added nothing to that thread, either.

PB!! Where would the three pages of posts be, though?? Ah, if only Plaw were here, he would've pulled up to this table with a full load of condiments.

Thank you for your kind words, and you do have a point. Religion or faith is very personal and unique for each and every person. I am a Catholic, and so are you and DC and JG (not sure of anyone else). However, I'm sure that we each hold our faith in a very different manner.

I remember seeing the Sistine Chapel for the first time, and learning that the Church was horrified at some of the nudity. Michelangelo was forced to paint clothing over some of the saints. That's censorship. Would we have found the same things offensive? The Last Judgment is one of the most powerful paintings I've ever seen, showing a commanding and purposeful Jesus. Would it be different if he were naked? I don't know.

Note to self: Don't look Obsessed With the Godfather in the eye.