Why insult Christians during holy week?

[Swede]

We don't say faggot to gay men, we don't say nigger to Africanamericans, yet it seems ok to have this choclate Jesus.

[pennylane100]

1. I cannot believe you are comparing a chocolate jesus

to insulting blacks and gays. Sorry but I do not see the connection.
Bigoty is insulting or showing bias toward someone because they belong a a group or race or whatever that you think is inferior. A chocolate jesus is just a chocolate jesus. The only thing to hope for is that its Cadburys.

[Swede]

4. So when I tell you I am insulted by it you just tell me to walk it off?

Swastikas are just crooked crosses I guess.

[Evoman]

5. I'm glad there is one of your kind of christian here.

Because, frankly, I'm looking for someone to explain WHAT THE FUCKING HELL is offensive about a choclate Jesus. Please...maybe you can tell me, because its just not getting through to me.

[Swede]

9. Say I lived in western Canada and someone burned an effigy of

someone from Winnipeg,and I kinda not like that.

[Evoman]

13. ?

Um..yeah...still not understanding.

On edit: If someone burned an effigy of someone from Winnipeg, I'd probably laugh. It is well known that people from Winnipeg are losers that smell like cabbage. And cabbage is gross.

I wish someone would burn an effigy of cabbage.

[Swede]

17. Sorry,I didn't make it clear.

Winnepeg is lovely.

[Evoman]

21. Yeah, but I have a chocolate jesus on my front lawn.

So I'm not afraid of you entering my sanctum sanctorum....the power of the chocolate christ compels you.

Plus, my choco jesus has an erection. Next time you walk by my block, watch were you stick your eyes.

On edit: How do you know where I live? I don't have anything on my profile.

[Swede]

23. I love Greek food.

Winnipeg is a fun town visit.

[Evoman]

27. HA! You just failed the Turing test, computer.

Your a computer, right?

[Swede]

28. Yes,

Just toying with you.

[saltpoint]

15. Swede, I really don't think anyone is going to burn anybody tonight.

Or tomorrow either.

This isn't analogous.

[Hissyspit]

19. Burning an effigy is the same as recreating a traditional image in chocolate?

What kind of logic is that?

[Dorian Gray]

114. Peronally, I'm not offended by the chocolate Jesus.

I was actually pretty amazed at the detail in the picture. What I think some might find offensive, however, is the nudity in the sculpture. (Something I don't find offensive, as it's the natural state.) Also, the chocolate as the medium might seem to trivialize Jesus to some, I suppose.

[charlie]

6. Are you insulted?

Or are you speaking hypothetically? Can I ask why?

[BurtWorm]

59. When you're insulted by chocolate, you throw out words hurtful to others?

Your reaction makes no sense.

[Evoman]

2. Jokes are all about timing.

What better timing is there?

[saltpoint]

3. The artist, Cavallaro, is a Christian.

His intent was not to insult members of his own faith.

The candy is a medium. That's all it is. Cavallaro usually works with food as a medium, by the way. This isn't the first time.

The objection to the sculpture, in my opinion, was not about the chocolate, but about the nudity. On most U.S. church walls' crucifixions, Jesus is wearing a loincloth.

There's no loincloth to be found in Cavallaro's sculpture.

Bohemian website observations here: http://www.norwegianity.com/ (You have to scroll down just a bit.)

--and the Reuters story of the gallery cancelling the exhibit here: www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/ dailynews/4012155a12.html -- which includes a photograph of the sculpture.

[Hissyspit]

8. Plenty of examples of fully nude Christ depictions in Western art.

Nothing new there. Unless the viewer is ignorant of the history of the Christian religion.

Artist is a Christian.

And a Catholic.

I don't understand exactly what people are finding insulting. To iconoclasts, it was insulting to have any depiction of Christ, chocolate or not, clothed or not. So, in their eyes, Michelangelo's Pieta was insulting.

[saltpoint]

10. Good point. There are many, many depictions of the nude Jesus,

including as an infant.

It's a long tradition and it doesn't seem to bother most folks.

I think the people doing all the howling in this case just wanted something to howl about.

[Hissyspit]

16. Nude Christ attributed to Michelangelo

http://terry58.stblogs.com/category/uncategorized/

Crucifix attributed to Michelangelo.

When Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom were hustled naked into the showers at the concentration camp Ravensbruck, Corrie told Betsy, “Jesus was naked too when they crucified Him.” They were ashamed of their nakedness in front of the prison guards, and only then realized in a graphic manner that Jesus was also naked upon the cross. As Dutch Protestants, they may not have been so aware of this fact since images such as crucifixes were not part of their devotional life. In fact, focus upon the passion of Christ was less explicit in Protestant spirituality since emphasis was more often centered upon the Resurrection of Christ and His triumph. (Not unlike the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has been.)

We don’t like to think of Jesus as naked, and many do not even like art depicting Jesus as a naked infant. Because of our concupiscence, nakedness is shameful in irregular circumstances, that’s why we wear clothing. For the Romans to strip Jesus naked was another means to further humiliate and shame him before Jew and Gentile alike. It is believed someone gave a veil to cover the loins of Our Lord, perhaps it was the Magdalen, since we see her unveiled at the foot of the cross in art. (Although such depictions were employed to remind and identify her as the woman who had anointed the feet of Jesus with her hair as well.)

- snip -

It seems to me the nakedness of the Cross condemns the vanity, immodesty and sensuality of our times.

[saltpoint]

18. It's staggeringly beautiful, isn't it.

Whether Michelangelo or another artist sculpted this, it is exquisite work.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. To compare this to Michelangelo's 'Pieta' is ridiculous.

There are indeed many nude depictions of Christ in art, as well as depictions of Mary nursing Jesus as a baby. Nude art is not commonly accepted by Americans, due to our Puritanical heritage.

So the nudity is one poke in the eye to American Catholics and other followers of Christ, who have been affected by the Puritanical standards of American society. Italian Catholics would not be offended by a nude Christ, nor would all American Catholics.

The second poke in the eye is making the sculpture out of chocolate, putting Christ on the same level as a cocolate Easter bunny.

The third poke in the eye is scheduling the exhibit during Holy Week.


Would you support this artist, or any artist, creating a nude chocolate figure of Muhammad and displaying it during Ramadan?

We saw a few months ago how much Muslims dislike seeing their prophet portrayed as a cartoon figure so I'm guessing you would not think that was such a great idea.

Why should Christians have to accept this mockery of our Savior during Holy Week?

Yes, the artist says he's a Catholic but Hitler said he was a Catholic, and he was, technically, but he obviously did not follow Catholic teachings in any way. I'm not saying this artist is anything like Hitler, only that anyone who's been baptized as a Catholic can say he's Catholic but not follow the tenets of the Catholic faith.

[saltpoint]

31. Many art teachers might strongly disagree, though.

They would likely suggest that the medium, while interesting, is nevertheless subject to standards of expression by the artist.

If somebody plays a Bach invention on a saxophone, purists will howl. That doesn't mean it isn't Bach. And it doesn't mean its sole intent was provocative. And it doesn't mean it's bad music. Non-traditional, certainly. But not "bad."

This poke in the eye you start with -- did the artist really poke anybody in the eye? How do you poke someone in the eye with a nude sculpture which just hangs in the air? That's an objection of someone who would be better off staying at home. No one's being held at gunpoint to go see this art work. People who don't like nudity can stay home if they choose to. People who aren't offended by it can show up.

Actually, they can no longer show up because public outcry resulted in the exhibit's being cancelled. I would call that censorsip by mob. "Crucify him, crucify him."

[DemBones DemBones]

82. So Christians have no right to protest while Muslims

are allowed to riot and threaten death to cartoonists who depicted Muhammad, to the newspapers that ran the cartoons, and to the Danish government that defended it as free speech? How is that fair? Muslims stated that they would protest any depiction of Muhammad because it's against their faith to depict him. I've always known that and suspect the Danes did, too.

Yes, the artist had a free speech right to make the sculpture and I have a free speech right to say it's exploitation to reduce Christ to the level of a chocolate Easter bunny.

The sculpture is well-executed, as far as one can tell from seeing glimpses of it on tv, and I don't object to the nudity but to the material and to the timing of the now-canceled exhibit during Holy Week.

White chocolate would not be better; I don't object to Jesus being portrayed as non-white. I lived in a Third World country as a child and saw Jesus and Mary depicted as looking like natives of that country. Not an issue to me then or now.

[saltpoint]

84. The Muslims who were outraged at the Danish cartoonist's depiction of

Muhammed were a minority. Just as Bill Donahue represents a minority of American Catholics.

The Catholics I know are not very fragile. They're tough and they're smart and this sculpture is nothing more than a blip on the screen.

Certainly they're not howling in the alleys over it. They have better things to do than howl, and they get on with it.

I think it's important that U.S. citizens not be lured into the image of "Muslim" as "extremist." That is an artifical construction, in my opinion. The prohibition against representation of the Prophet is strong, certainly, but that does not mean that this way of thinking will hold sway forever. Were it so that religious ideas were fixed and finite, the very idea of spiritual evolution and by extension, self-growth, would be pointless. It would, in fact, be a doomed commitment.

It was as extreme for extremist Muslims to call for Salman Rushdie's head for THE SATANIC VERSES as it is extreme for Bill Donahue to insist that a gallery cancel an exhibit over MY SWEET LORD. The same mechanism is at work. The same censorship is at work. The same impulse to control others' thoughts is at work. And artists are characteristically unpredictable and uncontrollable -- two forces which help them create magnificent art. Stravinsky's RITE OF SPRING is not something you're likely to hear on the Lawrence Welk Show. Thank God.

I acknowledge that you are not a prude. But I truthfully feel that your negative response to the Cavallaro work is overwrought. I don't see how a genuinely dedicated spiritual Christian could be seriously derailed by this sculpture for five minutes.

[DemBones DemBones]

99. It is in NO way as extreme for Catholics to call for

the cancellation of an exhibit of a chocolate nude Jesus during Holy Week in a public building (I think it was a hotel, not an art gallery, wasn't it?) as for Muslims to call for Salman Rushdie's HEAD. One was lodging an objection, requesting that an exhibit be cancelled, the other was a DEATH THREAT. There's a huge difference there and I'm astonished that you'd equate the two.

Bill Donohue and the Catholic League were NOT the only Catholics to call for te exhibit to be cancelled. Cardinal Egan, the archbishop of New York, also objected to the exhibit.

You are saying that not all Catholics object to this artwork, therefore it is not objectionable to Catholics. No doubt there are Muslims who have read "The Satanic Verses" without finding them objectionable but that doesn't mean the book is not offensive to Islam.

You characterize me as "overwrought." Do you have any idea how often Catholicism is trashed at DU? It is the overall attitude here that is most troubling. This artist is but a blip on the screen and I am much less upset by the sculpture itself than by the intolerance of DUers, by DUers' insistence that no one should be offended by this sculpture.

But, like your Catholic friends, I'm tough and I'm smart. I will not be intimidated into giving up defending against bigotry in any form.

[cyborg_jim]

100. You sure have a need to feel persecuted don't you?

[saltpoint]

119. No sale. Extremism is extremism, and Mr. Donahue is in fact an extremist.

He's a nutbag. He's a hyper-reactionary, triggered and wired to explode when a slight presents itself.

He is roundly condemned on progressive websites, and properly so. I equate all forms of extremism, very readily in fact, including Mr. Donahue's. You can do some research on Donahue if you want and if you come up with "representative contemporary Catholicism," I'll be very surprised. I believe your actual reaction will be closer to wanting to stuff the old fool into a wood chipper. And I'd help you.

The impulse to censor joins both the objection to Rushdie's novel and Cavallaro's MY SWEET LORD. Whether hotel lobby, gallery, or open plaza in Milan, I am almost certain to side with the artist, even if it's work I do not like, even if it's work that is magnificent -- I am more than a bit prone to side with the man or woman creating art against any moralistic authority trying to censor that art.

An interesting parallel stands in the New Testament. I'm reading Jesus as rebel, not as conformist. He presented a very controversial set of ideas -- not new ones, but he made them new with the vivid parables and the high-profile ministry -- and they didn't like it, and they nailed him to a board. I believe the censor is at work in politics as well. In both instances -- religious freedom and artistic expression -- someone with power wants to snuff out images or words that represent expanded consideration and potential change.

I still don't know what your real objection to that sculpture is, DemBones. You are in fact overwrought. It's a chunk of chocolate several states away. How are you hurt by it?

[Goblinmonger]

129. Just to be clear

if it were in a hotel or an art gallery, it would be a PRIVATE building not public. Don't want any lurkers to think that this is a government sponsored event.

It must be tough being catholic in a christian country. Oh, wait, I was catholic in this country for 20 some years and it wasn't all that tough at all.

[jgraz]

164. Actually I find Donohue more insulting to Catholics than anything

Cavallaro could have made his Jesus out of dog poo and it wouldn't come close to being as insulting as some racist, bullying, hate-filled windbag holding himself up as the spokesman for all Catholics.

I'm not even a Catholic any more, and it still makes me sick to see scum like Donohue pretending to represent Catholicism.

[saltpoint]

171. Good point. Maybe Cavallaro could be commissioned to do a sculpture

of Donahue -- out of sauerkraut.

I'd pay to see it.

[jgraz]

173. Ugh...whatever food he uses, I'd never be able to eat it again

Maybe he should just make another sculpture of JEEZUS, but make it out of little bits of Bill Donohue. That would solve a bunch of problems.

He'd probably have enough material left over for a couple of the apostles.

[saltpoint]

174. LOL! Then I'd be offended! Chocolate, sauerkraut -- I can handle

those. But Donahue bits?! Revolting!!

[Evoman]

86. Lol...do you wan the right to riot and threathen death?

It kind of sounds like your jealous of the muslims.

Oh, and rioting and death threats are not protected by free speech...and if muslims had done that over here, they would be sitting in jail.

[WhollyHeretic]

87. The artist has already been threatened

Seems like the poster is hinting at the right-wing meme that liberals hate Christianity but love Islam.

I think both situations are theater of the absurd. These are adults getting in a frenzy and threatening violence over chocolate and cartoons?

[Evoman]

90. I don't know where they get this idea.

Why the hell would we like or respect Islam any more that Christianity?

[WhollyHeretic]

91. Same reason we hate Amerika and love France

:shrug:
Threads like these really make me miss BMUS. You know she'd have a few good things to say. :)

[DemBones DemBones]

93. Of course not, don't be deliberately obtuse.

I am making the point that a great many DUers are very sensitive towards Muslims and Jews but totally insensitive toward Catholics and other followers of Christ.

[Evoman]

95. Bullshit. nt

[Goblinmonger]

130. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess

:eyes:

[Hissyspit]

33. You don't explain why these things are "pokes in the eye."

You don't explain why even if they are "pokes in the eye," that that's a bad thing. Sometimes people need to have their beliefs, symbols and traditions questioned or involved in dialogue (note that I am not saying that all belief-questioning is equivalent). Seems like conflating the fantasy/secular association of Easter and chocolate with the Crucifiction in a new way might be a GOOD thing. Even if it is not a good thing, what is so wrong with him giving it a try?

Holy week seems like the logical time to do this.

You presume (lots of presumptions going on - "you know perfectly well...") that I wouldn't think it was a good idea to create a chocolate Muhammed and display it during Ramadan (nor do you clarify whether this would be by a proclaimed Catholic artist or Muslim artist to do this). I wouldn't have any problem with that and would defend the artist's right to do so, but it would probably get him (or her) killed.

And your stereotypical, presumptive explanation for his and Andre Serrano's motivations could be described as "offensive" or "insulting," Most of my Christian students think "Piss Christ" is a beautiful image, until they hear the title, and then none of them can quite explain what exactly it is that is wrong with the title, which is accurately descriptive.

[DemBones DemBones]

89. So, you admit that an artist

has a right to make a nude chocolate image of Muhammad and exhibit it during Ramadan and you'd defend that right, but acknowledge that it would probably get him (or her) killed.

Notice that Christians have not rioted nor called for the artist to be killed, only objected to this chocolate Jesus being exhibited for shock value during Holy Week.


Of course students think "Piss Christ" is a beautiful image until they know what it is. A crucifix IS a beautiful image.

A crucifix in water would have created a similar photographic image but Serrano couldn't have exploited the shock value of urine, nor given it such a "shocking" title if he'd used water.

In all times, some artists look for success through offending the "bourgoisie," which is a lot harder to do today than it used to be. I've spent my life among artists so I'm not being presumptive, I know what many artists are like. Not all artists are like that but I think Serrano and this Caravello (?) fit the profile I've described.


Your students quite possibly are afraid to express why "Piss Christ" is offensive because they know who gives them their grades.

[Evoman]

92. Piss christ

http://www.burrac.com/ah/45/Serrano,%20Piss%20Christ,%201987.jpg

"Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic, consecrated virgin and Catholic nun, voiced her approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

[opiate69]

134. "A crucifix IS a beautiful image."

Um.. no, it's really not.. it's a barbaric, morbid image.

[rexcat]

151. To a sadomasochist it is...

a beautiful image. Just ask the many that populate the world.

[Evoman]

36. Response:

"So the nudity is one poke in the eye to American Catholics and other followers of Christ, who have been affected by the Puritanical standards of American society"

Well then, think of this as a chance to discuss that puritanical streak, which is ridiculous.

"The second poke in the eye is making the sculpture out of chocolate, putting Christ on the same level as a cocolate Easter bunny"

Sufficed to say, I don't see much of a difference between the two. But I digress. Now, lets think this through. Most christians in America buy choclate bunnies and eggs. Many have easter egg hunts. Maybe this is the perfect way of getting christians to understand what the REAL meaning of easter is. To put things in perspective. But instead of seeing it that way, you get immediatly insulted.

"The third poke in the eye is scheduling the exhibit during Holy Week."

Which is the only real time the full message of this artist can be appreciated.

"Would you support this artist, or any artist, creating a nude chocolate figure of Muhammad and displaying it during Ramadan?"

Yes. Many muslims SERIOUSLY need a "get the fuck over it" slap. I think a chocolate mohammed would look just as tasty.

"We saw a few months ago how much Muslims dislike seeing their prophet portrayed as a cartoon figure so I'm guessing you would not think that was such a great idea."

It is a great idea.

"Why should Christians have to accept this mockery of our Savior during Holy Week?"

Again, why is it a mockery? And you should accept it because you live in a secular country, and you HAVE to fucking accept it. There is no reason the rest of us, or even other christians, show fucking bow to your stupid religious sensitivies. Holy week or not.

"Yes, the artist says he's a Catholic but Hitler said he was a Catholic, and he was, technically, but he obviously did not follow Catholic teachings in any way. I'm not saying this artist is anything like Hitler, only that anyone who's been baptized as a Catholic can say he's Catholic but not follow the tenets of the Catholic faith"

And is being humorless a tenet of the Catholic faith? Is not appreciating art a tenet? Is being an insufferable blowhard who won't let an artist display his art because of over sensitivity a Catholic tenet?

[Zhade]

177. MAN, what an awesome response. Allow me to quote this for effect:

"Why should Christians have to accept this mockery of our Savior during Holy Week?"

because you live in a secular country, and you HAVE to fucking accept it. There is no reason the rest of us, or even other christians, should fucking bow to your stupid religious sensitivies. Holy week or not.

Fuck ANYONE who thinks their mythology runs this country!

[WhollyHeretic]

72. So... Catholics are getting poked in the eye by Jesus' penis?

[DemBones DemBones]

83. Ah, juvenile humor. You'd get along well with

the juvenile artist, I'm sure.

[Rabrrrrrr]

107. But by your logic, don't all those statues of Jesus and Mary done in marble make him a coaster?

If making him out of chocolate makes him akin to a chocolate easter bunny, then making him out of anything makes him akin to anything else that is made from that material.

The concrete Jesus statues? An insult to Catholics, for making Jesus akin to a driveway or patio slab.

The marble statues? They make Jesus no better than a chess piece or a coaster or a fudge maker's table.

The porcelain statues? No better than a toilet.

The wooden statues? No better than a whorehouse floor.

:eyes:

:silly:

[Evoman]

108. How do you know what whorehouse floors are made of?

Just wondering.

[Rabrrrrrr]

111. matcom gave me a detailed listing of whorehouse floor substrates

from his exhaustive Appendix C of his 2006 American Journey: A Statistical Picture of Sybaritism and Intemperance.

:rofl:

[Evoman]

112. BWAHAHAHAH

:rofl:

[sui generis]

152. er, so never occurred to maybe just not go to the museum?

DUH? Leave the rest of us non-literalists alone.

Just don't set the standard for the rest of us - you don't own your symbols any more than gays own the rainbow flag.

Would we kvetch if the KKK decided to adopt the rainbow flag for a white supremacist museum? Yeah we'd bitch about it, but we certainly wouldn't go out of our way to shut it down or to keep other people from visiting it and coming to their own conclusions.

Your 'Savior' is yours. Whether he is considered a holy man, a good man, or philosophical construct, I have news buddy, ya don't own him just because white bread cracka baby jeebus makes you swoon with holiness (and apparently a mild parietal lobe seizure, according to state of the art neuroscience).

Plus, WWJD. Anyone thought of that? Would your 'savior' want to be deified? Would he not find some humor in being depicted in chocolate? Is it just the choco-hooter that turns you off?

Religious art has met with derision and claims of sacrilege as long as there has been religious art. It's a shame this is the 21st century and indistinguishable from the 16th century.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Oh, please, he knew exactly what he was doing, including

timing the now canceled exhibit to open during Holy Week, with visitors being invited to break off pieces of the chocolate Jesus and eat them starting on Easter Monday.

The nudity doesn't bother me but it is offensive to many Americans. The exploitation of Christ to make a buck and a name for himself as a "daring" artist is what bothers me. He's putting Jesus on the level of a chocolate Easter bunny.

If he wants to be really daring, he should try making a nude statue of Muhammad out of chocolate and displaying it during Ramadan.

[saltpoint]

24. Hi, DemBones. Good to see you tonight on the boards.

I disagree. We can't speak for Cavallaro. You can't, I can't. Only he can speak for himself. I take him at his word that he is a Catholic, a Christian, and a sincere man.

He often works in foods as a medium, by the way -- this isn't the first time, and therefor it is not an anomalous work.

I don't have any problem with the notion of creating images of Jesus in one or another medium. If it had been October, and wood instead, I think the objection would still have been owed to the sculpted figure's nudity.

I don't think that can be underplayed. The trick many fundamentalists play on their congregations (and on themselves, IMO) is that Jesus was a manifestation of God in human form but -- here's the trapdoor -- he did not have human genitalia.

In fact he must have had. I do, you do. It's pretty universal, in fact.

And I believe the nudity of the figure is the objectionable tripswitch. Not the chocolate.

[JerseygirlCT]

122. I don't know that art can be right or wrong

It can be understood or not. It can get across the artist's intention, or fail miserably (sometimes both!)

A great deal depends on who is receiving the art (viewing it, hearing it, etc.)

Is the artist responsible for the reception of his/her art?

(Not asked of you specifically, Old Crusoe, just taking off on your thoughts here...)

[saltpoint]

124. Hi, JerseygirlCT. I follow. You've got the right strand, I think.

Melville knew his huge undertaking, MOBY-DICK, would be controversial, or barring that, poorly received.

He was right.

Salvador Dali is so bizarre and unpredictable that during his first years in New York his agent hired college students to follow him around in public so he wouldn't jump up and down on people's food in restaurants.

There's some pretty way-out-there folks.

A head-and-neck only bust of Jesus of Galilee would not have prompted a whimper from Bill Donahue or anyone else.

So I think this is a neck-down matter, not a chocolate-trivializes-Christianity matter.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. You're probably right. That and Bill Donahue's unending

need for publicity.

He's such a wind-baggy ass!

[saltpoint]

126. LOL! That's our Bill! -- n/t

[Evoman]

25. Wouldn't make nearly as much sense.

Muslems don't celebrate easter by either eating their god, or eating chocolate eggs.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. And DUers don't hate Muslims. nt

[Evoman]

32. DUers don't hate christians, either.

I'm living with one, and she is great.

[saltpoint]

35. For my part, I'm certainly ignorant of large swaths of Islamic culture,

but I harbor no ill will toward Muslims. I'm trying to read a bit more and try to address the gaps in my learning.

I've got a long way to go. But I intend to get there.

[moggie]

44. Again with the Muslim envy?

If he wants to be really daring, he should try making a nude statue of Muhammad out of chocolate and displaying it during Ramadan

Subtext: waaah, it's not fair! Those Muslims get to kill blasphemers, and we don't!

[BurtWorm]

45. Maybe he doesn't want to be really daring.

Maybe that's not the point.

[sinkingfeeling]

50. Muslims, unlike Christians, do not allow for any type of image of Muhammad.

Within Muslim communities, views have varied regarding pictorial representations. Shi'a Islam has been generally tolerant of pictorial representations of human figures, including Muhammad.<91> Contemporary Sunni Islam generally forbids any pictorial representation of Muhammad,<92> but has had periods allowing depictions of Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light. A few contemporary interpretations of Islam, such as some adherents of Wahhabism and Salafism, are entirely aniconistic and condemn pictorial representations of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

[Igel]

58. And yet, as Evoman pointed out,

why should we be concerned about anybody's religious sensitivities?

I want to draw a picture of Muhammed throwing a bomb into a nursery of little E. African kids, what's the problem?

People have a lot harder time considering Xians' views, whether or not they reflect the author's/artist's intent, than they do considering Muslims' views. In the case of the Muhammed-as-terrorist cartoon, nobody cared what the 'artist' thought; it was the interpretations that count--similar, in fact, to some literature classes I took, in which deconstruction and post-modernist criticism was the coin of the realm. We see the same thing in 'tar baby' discussions and others, where a plausible interpretation can't be right because it's not the way "we" want to take it. Here, it's suddenly the intent of the artist that's all important. It's like Derrida suddenly saying it's not the interstices that matter, it's the letters the author wrote at the time concerning what the writer meant, or Marxist critics saying that because Turgenev wasn't a Marxist their views simply can't apply.

In other words, the situation strikes me as completely surreal.

[Evoman]

69. I think the only concern would be practical.

Otherwise...I supported the authors of the comics. Their comics indeed made a very good point (and I mean the ones they actually drew, not the ones the muslim leaders did just to antagonize). The whole thing was rather ironic, if you think about it.

[Goblinmonger]

131. Odd

You seem to know exactly what this artist is thinking. Especially when the artist says that he is a Christian and this was done as a homage to the Christ and not a negative comment. But I guess you know better. And you don't take people at their word for what they say their beliefs are. Do you expect the same from those that you talk to?

[Zhade]

178. So not only do you see minds that no longer exist (re Terri Schiavo), now you can *read* them?

Your petulant self-righteous overreactions are priceless. Thank you for the entertainment!

[saltpoint]

7. You're running 2 identical threads on this. Word for word.

Maybe have the mods combine them.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Double posting happens to me sometimes, using my laptop.

I'm sure that's what happened here.

[saltpoint]

26. Yep -- happens to me, too. I just thought the OP would want to know.

These two threads could be combined to one.

[saltpoint]

34. Or, for that matter, maybe the OP isn't coming back to this thread.

I've asked him to return on the OTHER thread. "Come back!" I entreated.

Or, maybe there are 2 different people instead of one, and I just don't realize it.

Odd, though, that they posted exactly the same thread topic in exactly the same words.

I mean, hey. That's ODD.

[greyl]

11. Your post has given me a brand new reason to do exactly that. nt

[Swede]

12. Sorry,but you need a bit of educations.

Get back to me in awhile.

[saltpoint]

14. A bit of one education or educations, plural? Hey, I mean we all

skipped a few classes back in high school, didn't we?

I did.

Don't tell Mr. Thomas. He was the Assistant Principal. And he didn't like it when people skipped.

Seriously, Swede. You hit the 'enter' button twice. You're running 2 identical threads.

[greyl]

46. Please, teach me what you think I need to learn. nt

[saltpoint]

37. Here's another DU thread on this topic if you want to scan through it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=118805&mesg_id=118805

[sam sarrha]

38. jesus said 'Eat of my flesh drink of my blood' the sacrament..??

[sam sarrha]

39. we could have avoided this whole piss fight if he'd used 'White' Chocolate..

[Ecumenist]

41. You know, I ha ve to agree with you Sam...

I have been hearing and reading about the uproar about the Chocolate Jesus and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why it's so disrespectful. I am a Christian and live as one each and everyday. I have been trying to get what the problem is and when you mentioned the fact that it was a particularly brown shade of chocolate vs white chocolate, it gelled. That's the problem and it's pathetic and pitiful.

We're so busy fussing and fighting over STUPID AND INANE things but seemingly going out of way NOT to follow the tenets of the teachings of Christ,ducking and dodging every chance we get to help someone in some way, no matter how small it may seem to be. I, for one, feel the disrespect isn't in the chocolate Christ but in the neglect of those who hunger, who find themselves in prisons, who have nowhere to lay their heads, who thirst, who are lonely, who find themselves ill or in war, not having a safe cranny to rest,(remember those pesky Beautitudes, somebody??),yet insisting on flinging insults and unreasonable accusations at one another. Aren't these the fundamental reason that the Crucifixion is so important and didn't Christ teach the importance of not becoming fixated on the ritual but watching over each other and helping those who cannot help themselves?

Wake up people, the Chocolate Jesus ain't the issue or the problem!! After all, what Jesus looked like, whether He was brown, white purple or green with red stripes, polka dots and zippers, is not the most important thing; it's the results of our actions and how we manifest the contents of a beautiful heart and soul to the world by caring about the others and finding out what is needed to help, not just as it applies to humans but the bloody planet and the fact that the core of what Christ taught is what we should be reminding ourselves of and putting those things into action. Somehow, I don't think that when we finally shuffle off this mortal coil and find ourselves having to give an accounting of what we did with our lives and what we did to make this place better in whatever small way we could, that God is going to grill anyone on what we thought and said about the year that someone made a statue of Christ out of one of the most beloved things he ever created...:eyes:

Frankly, I think that it offends God that we as believers allow ourselves to get distracted by idiotic and in the end, meaningless mess while not doing a damn thing to make a positive difference in some way. I was taught that although there are especially important times in the calendar, EVERYDAY is the sabbath, not just Sunday and EVERY WEEK should be looked on as holy. Too many are sunday morning Christians, doing all kinds of dirt the other 6 days of the week. For those of us who find some insult in the fact that it was chocolate, perhaps you ask yourselves if the colour is the real problem.

[sam sarrha]

113. it is a cover for losing the war.. hate gays, artists must be gay hate them..bla bla bla

[bowens43]

40. Why not insult Christians.?

I for one am sick and tired of their special status in this country. No idea should be immune from insult. Especially incredibly silly ideas that have absolutely no basis in fact . Yes, a chocolate Jesus is not only ok, it's incredibly funny.

[BushOut06]

42. They certainly have no problems insulting other religions, do they?

They probably thought those Danish cartoons were hilarious, and couldn't understand why so many Muslims were upset.

[cosmik debris]

43. Why? I'll tell you why.

Because we live in a free country. That's why.

Because you have no special privilege to be free from insults. That's why.

Because you are not above the rest of us. That's why.

Because Catholics don't have absolute power in this country. That's why.

Because Freedom of speech is more important than your hurt feelings. That's why.

And because it is fun, and you can't stop people from having fun just because you got your panties in a wad.

And don't forget the most important reason, because we can. That's why.

Here's another holy week thought about the medium for christian sculptures.

I don't care if it rains or freezes
'Long as I got my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far

Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
I'm afraid He'll have to go
His magnets ruin my radio
And if I have a wreck He'll leave a scar

Riding down a thoroughfare
With His nose up in the air
A wreck may be ahead, but He don't mind
Trouble coming He don't see
He just keeps His eye on me
And any other thing that lies behind

Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Though the sunshine on His back
Make Him peel, chip and crack
A little patching keeps Him up to par

When I'm in a traffic jam
He don't care if I say "damn"
I can let all my curses roll
Plastic Jesus doesn't hear
'Cause he has a plastic ear
The man who invented plastic saved my soul

Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Once His robe was snowy white
Now it isn't quite so bright
Stained by the smoke of my cigar

If I weave around at night
And policemen think I'm tight
They never find my bottle, though they ask
Plastic Jesus shelters me
For His head comes off, you see
He's hollow, and I use Him for a flask

Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Ride with me and have a dram
Of the blood of the Lamb
Plastic Jesus is a holy bar

more verses at http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/plastic0.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. Speaking of Plastic Jesuses...

http://www.snopes.com/religion/plastic.asp

:rofl:

[Swede]

51. You must love FreeRepublic.

It's a 24/7 hatefest over there.

[cosmik debris]

53. Never been there

And I don't care to go, but I also don't care to be told that I should pamper people who think that they are special.

My right to free speech is equal to your right to ignore me. If you are unwilling to exercise your right, that's your fault, not mine.

[Zenlitened]

54. Where's the hate in a chocolate Jesus?

Have you answered this yet? I'm still sorting through the two threads you're running on the topic, so if you've answered it already, and could point me to the link, I'd be grateful.

[TechBear_Seattle]

47. Was there a need to post your bigoted crap as two threads rather than one? n/t

[Swede]

52. I think it was a glitch T.

I only hit the post button once.

[Bragi]

48. I agree. No reason to limit insults to just Holy Week. /nt

[cosmik debris]

55. Perhaps you would care to explain

How your CHOICE to be Christian is equivalent to an African American's CHOICE to be Black or a Homosexual man's Choice to be Gay?

That should be interesting.

[Swede]

56. Could you choose to be a Republican?

How would that fit your skin? I am what I am. When I saw the statue,no one had to tell me "This guy is throwing shit in my face." I just knew.

[cosmik debris]

57. So you have no free will?

Christianity is a genetic characteristic? That's a new one. Perhaps you could cite some reference material to enlighten me on the genetic determination of religion.

And I just have to know, what materials are OK to sculpt you savior in? And why? Who sets these standards? Are they consistent? Universal? Do they have any basis in religion or only in your "feelings"? I'd certainly like to see some scriptural references.

[saltpoint]

60. With respect, Swede, you do not know. You have no idea. And you are

not in a position to make that kind of claim if you do not know Cosimo Cavallaro.

I take the man at his word that his intent was to create a work of art. It appears that he has done so. He often uses food as a medium. That in and of itself is not that unusual. Artists create, and different mediums excite their creative powers.

There appear to be tripswitches in people's objections to this art work. One is a possible racial tension -- the Western depiction of Jesus is usually Caucasian and this sculpture suggests a darker-skinned figure; Two is the uneasiness some have about the Eucharist, and Jesus' allusion to eating of his body and drinking of his blood for redemptive salvation and its resonance with kids eating chocolate bunnies at Easter; and Three is the fact that most U.S. churches do not hang Crucifixes of Jesus which show his genitalia.

Don't you think one or two or all three of those things is the source of the objection? And yet you slam the artist. That's just not rational and it's certainly not fair.

[WhollyHeretic]

65. So we shouldn't insult the Republican Party?

Your "logic" gets more and more ridiculous.


You poor oppressed Christian. Just out of curiosity, how many presidents have we had that weren't Christian? What percentage of congress isn't Christian? :eyes:

This was made by a fucking Christian artist!!!

[saltpoint]

61. For his part, the Mayor of New York had this to say about the dust-up:

* * * * *

"If you want to give the guy some publicity, talk more about it, make a big fuss," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told WABC radio. "If you want to really hurt him, don't pay attention."


* * * * *

[charlie]

62. Even fundie winger David Kuo

is rolling his eyes over Donohue's over-the-top frothing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070331/cm_huffpost/044649

[saltpoint]

63. Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen Kuo's response. But Bill Donohue

really is over-the-top.

That guy is -- how does Joni Mitchell put it? -- sick. Twisted. Hoobie-Shoobie.

[BurtWorm]

64. Slight change in emphasis from Giuliani, for sure.

But he could have said something about how art makes us human by making us think and it's a shame when we let our emotions get in the way of our thinking. Can't wait until we have a mayor with the courage to say something like that sometime in my lifetime.

[saltpoint]

67. Agree. Bloomberg is smart enough to understand what you mean, too.

But he chooses to do a drive-by as a way of quelling the uproar.

Maybe it will work, but I doubt it.

Donahue's objection to the work is one thing, but the sheer ferocity of it is another.

And meanwhile, I think Cavallaro has done his job well -- he's forced a public dialogue on artistic expression and the ideas centered around something he created.

[charlie]

70. The ferocity is manufactured, I think

Fruits of a rightwing industry with an interest in keeping Christians of a certain stripe perpetually aggrieved. The likes of O'Reilly and Donohue would have to get real jobs if they couldn't gin up fresh outrage regularly. Tune in South Park any night of the week and you can watch Jesus as a slightly addled call-in host. If you catch the right episode, you can see him poop on Dubya and the flag (really!). So why is everyone losing it over a chocolate Jesus when Comedy Central is beaming Christian scat jokes right into their homes? Because that's what Bill and Bill and Ann and Rush are mad about today.

[saltpoint]

71. Hi, charlie. Very strong point. "Christians of a certain stripe perpetually

aggrieved." That's a very surgical read, and very nicely put.

I haven't seen that SOUTH PARK episode, but knew Jesus was in the cast.

There are some odd "sightings" of the Jerusalem slugger from time to time, many of them in food:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/5/jesus.htm

[charlie]

73. He's everywhere, isn't he?

Even in a mildew stain in a shower stall. The Lord really does see all. What's oddest, I think, is how people can see Him all over the place when nobody knows what he actually looked like.

[saltpoint]

74. That's right. If he's looking at us from mildew stains in shower stalls

and sees US naked, then it's only fair that we see HIM naked, too.

And Cavallaro's sculpture affords us one more opportunity to do just that.

The one sighting on that website that stopped me in my tracks was the visage of Christ in the forkful of spaghetti.

I haven't been the same since reading that one.

[charlie]

76. Haw! Right, fair is fair!

I've gotta say, Cavallaro has a stronger stomach than I do for putting up with this nonsense. I would've just stuck wings on him, called him Icarus, and been done with it.

[saltpoint]

77. A chocolate Icarus! That would have done the trick.

Or he could have enlargened the ears and made Prince Charles.

[charlie]

80. Oh shit

Now you're getting nasty :rofl: If they believed he was scorning Christians before, they'd know it after. And I'd probably agree with them.

[saltpoint]

81. On Prince Charles' ears, I've always had the gnawing hunch that he

was an elephant in a previous life.

Can't prove it, of course. But the impression lingers...

[Rabrrrrrr]

66. Bwuhahahaha!! I'm a Christian. Nothing wrong with the Choco-Jesus.

:shrug:

I think it's perfectly fine.

Are you ashamed that Jesus had a penis?

[Evoman]

68. Yeah, but your a "cool" christian.

Not one of those stick up the ass ones.

[DemBones DemBones]

75. Ah, a "cool" Christian is apparently one who doesn't know

when his faith is being insulted by a stick-in-the-eye artist aiming to gain money and fame by shocking a lot of perfectly niice people.

I'm not at all shocked by nudity, even a nude chocolate Jesus, but I'm offended by the nude chocolate Jesus because it's exploitation.

[Evoman]

78. GET. OVER. YOURSELF.

Honestly...you haven't even explained WHY this is offensive or how your being "stuck in the eye".

Honestly..its a fucking chocolate Jesus made by a christian artist. A cool christian is one who doesn't think he's the center of the fucking universe, and who doesn't see everything as a personal slight.

I enjoyed this piece of art. The skill it took to be carved in a unwieldy medium. Its very well done. It even makes a point, that maybe christians should take to heart. Get the fuck over youself already.

[saltpoint]

79. DemBones, I guess I need to know how you would square your

claim that Cavallaro's work is exploitation when it seems clear from the figure's face that this is by no means a cartoonish depiction.

There's not a hint of caricature or satire to it, is there? For Jesus as satire, there is Gore Vidal's LIVE FROM GOLGOTHA!

This is not that.

[BurtWorm]

85. How is it exploitation?

He's breaking it up into little pieces and feeding people with it on Easter Monday. As far as I know he's not even planning to charge anyone.

[Dorian Gray]

115. Maybe that's the exploitative part

Almost as though it's mimicing BOTH communion and the Easter holiday where children partake in their chocolate goodies.

I didn't know that the artist was planning on doing that. That does make me question his motive a little bit more.

[BurtWorm]

117. Could it be a very elegant statement about what Easter has become?

Isn't he entitled to make a statement about Easter?

I don't understand why so many Christians have such difficulty relaxing around intellectual and artistic play with the symbols of the religion. Is it like a virus or something?

[Zenlitened]

120. "... a very elegant statement about what Easter has become..."

That was my first reaction to it, something along those lines. Basically, I said, "Hmmmmm...."

Not realizing that in fact there are only two "appropriate" responses:

A) Having one's religious sensibilities offended

B) Chortling over the obvious swipe at religion on behalf of Evil Atheists everywhere.

As an atheist myself, I suppose I should have gone right to response "B." But it didn't seem like an "obvious swipe" to me, didn't inspire a sinister sort of glee. I thought it had some fairly complicated things to say.

Oh well. Guess I better sign up for the Evil Atheist refresher course. :evilgrin:

[Dorian Gray]

127. It could be

and to be honest, the work doesn't bother me. It is what it is. If the artist wanted to display Christ in a negative way, that's his opinion and right. I can disagree with it (though I don't know that was his intention here). And I don't think that so many Christians have a problem with this. It's a topic on right wing commentative shows, but other than that, most people I know haven't given it more than a passing thought.

I do agree that it's art. It's interesting, and I think that your take on it might be what the artist intended. Even if he intended it in the most negative interpretation, which I would feel quite validated in critiquing, but not censoring, it's still worthy of discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Um, according to the myth, Jesus did the same thing

metaphorically before he died and that is the reason we celebrate the eucharist. Seems like a kinda cool thing to do, really.

[Dorian Gray]

150. Um, I know that

That "myth" is the basis of Christianity. Some (and I've made it clear that I don't hold this opinion myself) may find that this is a trivialization of the sacrament of communion by immitating it in the form of a chocolate Easter treat.

[Goblinmonger]

154. But

using pagan bunnies and eggs to celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ isn't trivializing it at all, I suppose. Using an unlevened piece of bread is somehow better? What about when my friends and I played communion when we were young using Neco wafers?

I just don't get some people. This seems to be a very respectfully done sculpture in a medium the artist likes and who then is going to feed people with that medium, something that the Jesus of the gospels would have approved of. Anything to get your panites in a wad I guess.

[Rabrrrrrr]

98. No, a "cool" Christian is one who's willing to a) understand an artist's motives,

b) understand a critiquer's motives, and c) realize that there is now way to "insult" a faith unless one chooses to be insulted.

Even if the Christian doesn't agree with a critique or an artist's political/theological statement, etc., a "cool" Christian is one who at least strives to empathize; or, at minimum, realizes that it is impossible to insult or do damage to the faith and will just go "Eh, pfft. Whatever." The "cool" Christian knows that God is big enough to take it.

The more people get their underwear in a knot over stuff like this, the more its gonna happen, and the more the rest of the world is gonna laugh their asses off at Christians for being a bunch of humorless, stick-in-the-mud, asshole fucks. Because, sadly, there are a hell of a lot of those.

James Dobson is far more damaging - by multiple magnitudes of degrees - than a chocolate Jesus, a piss Christ (which is a very authentic and honest artistic expression, by the way) or the Virgin Mary with elephant feces (which also is a legitimate, and very beautiful bit of artwork, which anyone who actually bothered to study or understand the culture from which it came and the artist's intention, instead of just being a knee-jerk hyper-emotionalistic offense-seeking asshole, would realize).

:eyes:

[Critters2]

184. This "cool" Christian is one who thinks people are sometimes trying to get a rise out of her

and refuses to give them that pleasure.

Besides, it's Holy Week, and I'm just getting on the 'puter at 1 am! Who has the time?!

Critters
had a kick-ass Seder tonight,
and is now rather tired

[JerseygirlCT]

128. What's the alternative though

If the artist says his intent was not to shock or insult, but you are shocked and insulted, what's the solution?

Is every artist supposed to check with every potential experiencer of her/his art before creating it?

Or is it simply better for you not to spend too much time on art that doesn't speak to you?

Throughout the ages, works of art which are now considered "classics" or the works which set the bar by which other art is judged, were shocking and insulting to some people.

How do you propose not to be insulted while still allowing artists free expression?

[saltpoint]

88. I think many Christians are not insulted by this sculpture. I figure there

are many different reactions, from Bill Donahue's indignant fury to people who hardly know the basic details of the story. And plenty in between.

It seems to me that there is a body-problem in the mix here. Might there not be deep unease and apprehension in some of the more vociferous objectors regarding the relationship we have with our own bodies? The relationship of skin color to cultural expectations. The relationship of Self to sex generally and depictions of genitalia particularly.

If Jesus is presented to us as divine, why is his penis an issue? Same question for whether he's presented to us as human.

How can those howling blasphemy be upset with his genitalia when it's his face that tells the greater narrative of his life, and what it should mean to his followers?

I believe people secure in their relationship to their own bodies don't freak out when a naked person is exhibited in an art work.

[Evoman]

94. B..b...b...butttt they are showing NAUGHTY bits.

NAUGHTY!!!

[saltpoint]

97. It's a penis. Half the world has one. These folks need to get over it.

[Goblinmonger]

133. Yeah, but that's GOD'S penis.

And comparing the chocolate Jesus to the Michelangelo nekkid Jesus picture posted, it looks like the more recent artist was a little bit more, um, generous than the classic artist.

[saltpoint]

135. Hi, Goblinmonger. "a little bit more, um, generous..." --

LOL! If this is a neck-down controversy... well, a waist-down controversy, there's not a good case for religious blasphemy. Donahue has a short fuse. I'm talking about his temperament, of course.

Really. I am!

[Goblinmonger]

136. "short fuse"

:rofl: you kill me.

[saltpoint]

137. It's the only explanation I can think of for why Donahue is flying into a

rage over a chunk of chocolate.

He's jealous of the hang.

[Goblinmonger]

138. Him and his tootsie roll midgit

just can't compare to his lord. What did he expect?

[saltpoint]

139. Plus, the sculpture appears to float in the air. It doesn't literally float,

but it appears to. For all its 6-foot life-size-ness, it looks weightless.

I can't help but think that Donahue feels like a giant lead albatross is hanging around his neck, and that he has to drag it around, fighting gravity, while this Cavallaro -- a guy I doubt Donahue has ever met -- creates this weightless, soaring, floating replication of the Galilean.

And if that weren't enough to remind Bill Donahue that he's a plodding lunkhead with the brains of a farm animal, Cavallaro uses chocolate!

"Behold," the angel tells poor furious Bill. "I fly above ye and piss on your angry noggin!"

[Goblinmonger]

140. As you know, I don't find the Jesus mythology

especially compelling, but I honestly think this sculpture is quite breathtaking and positive. Of course, I'm an evil apostate, so what do I know.

[saltpoint]

143. You know what, Goblinmonger? For an evil apostate, you're damned

excellent company.

And besides, some of my best friends are evil apostates.

I try to inhabit the mythic constructs I'm given if I can. Sometimes I resist, but I do make the effort. For example, I like LORD OF THE FLIES as an adventure tale, but after reading Golding's comments on biblical allegory, the story is richer. Simon is a character that provokes my empathetic protection even before I know Golding has him singled out as Someone special. What is so unnerving to me about that tale is Roger, a character who flings the stone at Piggy, killing him. In almost every Western novel I know the bad guy has at least one redeeming feature that makes dismissing him inhumane. But not Roger. I think he's Western literature's only true nihilist.

And I lean on traditional Christian imagery to interpret EQUUS, Peter Shaffer's masterpiece. Tho some critics grumbled over it, I licked it off the floor. 'Saw it on Broadway with Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Dysart.

We agree on this sculpture. The face of the thing suggests a transcendence over humiliation to me, but is artistically devastating just the same. I sense no play or silliness by Cavallaro. I think this one is straight and true.

[Goblinmonger]

141. Your sig line

Have you read Seamus' new translation of Beowulf? Wow, what a read. It reads like butter. He is an amazing poet/writer.

[saltpoint]

142. I know he has done it but haven't reached it yet. You are absolutely

right -- he is magnificent.

I heard him do a reading, hosted by Dr. Margaret Rowe. My god what a beautiful evening that was.

The poems of his which "unearth" the bog people are knockouts. I read them, wanting them to hurt me. They're that beautiful. I love the grit and gravel and growl of his writing, and he puts it right alongside the blossoms and the lyric beauty. When it was announced that he'd won the Nobel, I jumped up and down on the furniture all day. Screams of elation.

He's my guy.

==============
Seamus Heaney

"The Strand At Lough Beg"

In memory of Colum McCartney

All round this little island, on the strand
Far down below there, where the breakers strive,
Grow the tall rushes from the oozy sand
DANTE, Purgatorio I, 100 - 103


Leaving the white glow of filling stations
And a few lonely streetlamps among fields
You climbed the hills towards Newtonhamilton
Past the Fews Forest, out beneath the stars -
Along that road, a high, bare pilgrim's track
Where Sweeney fled before the bloodied heads,
Goat-beards and dogs' eyes in a demon pack
Blazing out of the ground, snapping and squealing.
What blazed ahead of you? A faked road block?
The red lamp swung, the sudden brakes and stalling
Engine, voices, heads hooded and the cold-nosed gun?
Or in your driving mirror, tailing headlights
That pulled out suddenly and flagged you down
Where you weren't known and far from what you knew:
The lowland clays and waters of Lough Beg,
Church Island's spire, its soft treeline of yew.

There you once heard guns fired behind the house
Long before rising time, when duck shooters
Haunted the marigolds and bulrushes,
But still were scared to find spent cartridges,
Acrid, brassy, genital, ejected,
On your way across the strand to fetch the cows.

For you and yours and yours and mine fought shy,
Spoke an old language of conspirators
And could not crack the whip or seize the day:
Big-voiced scullions, herders, feelers round
Haycocks and hindquarters, talkers in byres,
Slow arbitrators of the burial ground.

Across that strand of yours the cattle graze
Up to their bellies in an early mist
And now they turn their unbewildered gaze
To where we work our way through squeaking sedge
Drowning in dew. Like a dull blade with its edge
Honed bright, Lough Beg half shines under the haze.
I turn because the sweeping of your feet
has stopped behind me, to find you on your knees
With blood and roadside muck in your hair and eyes,
Then kneel in front of you in brimming grass
And gather up cold handfuls of the dew
To wash you, cousin. I dab you clean with moss
Fine as the drizzle out of a low cloud.
I lift you under the arms and lay you flat.
With rushes that shoot green again, I plait
Green scapulars to wear over your shroud.

[Evoman]

144. I have a michael alexander translation.

How does Seamus' differ?

[Goblinmonger]

155. Seamus doesn't try to do a straight translation

but puts it into more modern language while still keeping the content and poetic feel. It is my favorite translation by far. It's well worth checking out.

[JerseygirlCT]

147. Even from a religious point of view, I'm not sure I understand

the big ruckus.

Are we not allowed to interpret Christ's meaning ourselves? The artist says he's Christian. Even if you don't care for his work, is he not allowed the benefit of the doubt that this expression is meant not in an insulting or negative light?

Personally, I love chocolate, so I don't see the evil here.

While Jesus, to Christians, is an historical figure, the Christ is much more, including much of symbolism and meaning that can be unpacked by each person. I fail to see why this particular artist should not do that. If you don't care to share his view or even attempt to understand it, that's entirely your right.

Getting all het up over it?

That I don't understand.

[saltpoint]

153. I think we're in agreement on all points, aren't we?

I'm reading the comments you have here and am nodding my head yes to all of them.

[JerseygirlCT]

156. I think so! I could be wrong, but it sure seems to me as if

some people are *looking* to be offended.

If it's not your cuppa, move on.

It's not as if it's advocating harm to some person(s).

{shrug}

[saltpoint]

158. Yer durn tootin'. When I visited London last time, I walked into

Tate Modern.

The building was not so hot, I thought. Not a welcoming space, a little strange-feeling, and oddly proportioned.

But the collection. And the exhibits. What a delight.

There were some things on the walls that were too hot to handle for more conservative venues. London was bombed relentlessy by Hitler, and the freedom that prevails there must extend to the walls of every museum, every school room, every lecuture hall -- all of it. That impulse for creative expression was never wrong to begin with, and having survived what it did, is all the more precious and impressive.

That's my take on it, anyway. So this Cavallaro is one more artist in the tradition that was right in the first place. 'Have never met Cavallaro, but am taking his side in the dispute just as I'd take Michelangelo's side against Savonarolla.

And yes, JerseygirlCT, I stole that notion from you from your excellent post yesterday of the nude Christ, attributed to -- who else? -- Michelangelo.

[JerseygirlCT]

160. I think you may be giving me credit that belongs to someone

else.

But I'm happy for the exchange all the same!

I haven't been to London in 25 years now. That sucks.

I felt like I'd been there my whole life then. Just, totally at home at once. Sigh.

One of these days...

[saltpoint]

161. You'll get to London. I predict sooner than you expect.

I first became aware of it listening to an interview with Glenn Gould, the pianist.

He was praising the classical music scene there, although he had strong praise for the Beatles, Petula Clark, and some other people I didn't know.

It was like he was vibrating with praise for the opportunities in that city, so I knew then and there I had to go have a look.

Glenn Gould was right!

[moggie]

167. Wait until you see the Tate Modern's extension!

They've just got the go-ahead for an extension, which ought to be spectacular:

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm

It's due to be completed by 2012.

You're right that the existing building isn't exactly welcoming, but on the other hand the Turbine Hall provides a fantastic space for very large installations.

[saltpoint]

168. Hi, moggie. Thanks for that link.

Yes -- it will be made alright by that extension, and I can't wait to go have a look at it.

One review of the Tate Modern when it first opened discussed the architecture of the building. The reviewer didn't care for it. He wrote, "A hatred of beauty could not have been the architect's intent. But it would explain the effect."

[moggie]

172. I've always had an uneasy admiration for the exterior

Seen from the north bank, it has a kind of brutal majesty. I like the fact that we used to build power stations which were unashamed of looking powerful.

[saltpoint]

175. Not a bad point at all. Entirely satisfied with your phrase "brutal majesty."

Also I admit readily that I like the walk along the water. It's just very, very pleasant.

[saltpoint]

96. This is an interesting perspective on the same folks who are

objecting to Cavallaro's work:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9942,owen,9248,1.html

[charlie]

106. Oh yeah, Dogma

Kevin Smith not only attended a protest against his movie, he was interviewed by a TV news crew as a protester. If you have a few minutes sometime, you might enjoy his account of that day -- he's a surprisingly good raconteur:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UDoIBgiUAQ

[saltpoint]

121. charlie, thank you for that link. I'll give a look later this evening.

[Random_Australian]

101. Ok, I'm missing somethiing. Please explain to me, exactly which part of making

this statue of Jesus is offensive?

Yes, I realise you're offended. I'm asking why.

Is there something silly about chocolate to you?

Is there something wrong with the anatomy bieng correct?

Also, would you please state the first four words that come to your mind when you think "chocolate" ?

Because it seems there is some serious miscommunication going on here, and I would like to resolve it. :)

[DemBones DemBones]

102. Jesus told His followers

that when people refused to hear the truth, they should leave the town, shaking the dust of the town off their sandals as they did.

So I'm shaking off the dust of intolerance and obtuse refusal of posters in this thread to understand why scheduling an exhibit of a nude chocolate sculpture of Jesus during Holy Week is offensive, and leaving this thread.

:ciao:

You can all proceed to agree with each other that this chocolate Jesus is a masterpiece of art.

In 2008, you can all ask why so many Catholics and other Christians didn't vote Democratic.

[WhollyHeretic]

103. Damn libruls want to take our bibles

:eyes:
:rofl:

[Evoman]

104. HAHA...you don't even KNOW why your offended, do you.

We sure as hell don't.

"In 2008, you can all ask why so many Catholics and other Christians didn't vote Democratic."

Are you serious? :rofl: By all means, go run into the arms of the repugs. You may fit in better with them. They seem to also have sensitivities to genitilia and brown Jesi, and well as being artistically handicapped.

On edit: I'd like to post a Post I made a long time ago, with some changes:

"Most republicans call gays disgusting names

Most republicans tell people who don't think taxes should be lower they are evil communists

Most republicans tell you your a pussy if you don't want to go to war and kill and prefer peace.

Most republicans called black people who are trying to survive "thugs" or other racist names.

Most republicans call latinos border crossing animals

Most republicans want to shoot latinos crossing borders

Most republicans think we should put all drug users away and or execute them

Most republicans think we are unpatriotic scum that should be killed or thrown out of a country because we dont agree with them.

Some small percentage of democrats call religionists loony because they are offended by a chocolate Jesus

OH MY GOD. THAT ONE ATHEIST DEMOCRAT CALLED ME CRAZY. I'M GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN.

That just makes em crazy in more ways than one. Yeah, you heard me. FUCKING CRAZY.

[Rabrrrrrr]

105. Wow - this gets post of the year for tantrum throwing!

Beautiful!!

:applause:

You: "This is offensive"

Us: "Why?"

You: "Clearly you don't want dialogue, so I'm leaving."

Brilliant!!

:yourock:











:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[BurtWorm]

109. Catholics won't vote Democratic in 2008 because chocolate Jesus has a penis.

:eyes:

[TechBear_Seattle]

110. Typical refusal to address reasonable questions

You were asked to explain why this sculpture was offensive. Was it the color, as many have suggested? The material from which it was sculptured? The depiction of Jesus crucified? The presentation of Jesus as a mortal man rather than a neutered divinity?

Sculptures of Jesus are very common during Holy Week; the time is, after all, the commemoration of his crucifiction. So how is this offensive?

But rather than answer reasonable questions, you go off in a huff and whine about how you don't have to explain yourself. You are exemplifying why so many thoughtful people reject the Christian faith, you do know that, right?

[Dorian Gray]

116. To be fair

DemBones did say that the chocolate Jesus was reminiscent of a chocolate Easter Bunny, which would lead me to believe that DemBones finds it to be a trivialization of Jesus. And, if that is the intention of the artist, it is minimizing, trivializing and insulting.

I don't know enough about the sculpture to know if that was the artist's intention. I am amazed at how well he used the medium of chocolate in this sculpture. I find that his idea to break apart the chocolate and feed it to guests viewing the sculpture on Easter Monday is probably motivated by communion. The statement that he is making about it is not necessarily insulting, but it appears to be trivializing of communion. I only know of that from two statements made in this thread, however, and I am not sure whether that was the artist's intent for Monday.

[saltpoint]

123. We could all revisit the Catholic bishops who declared that John Kerry

should not be given communion owing to his position on a woman's right to choose.

I personally found that offensive and would like to meet that bishop one day to tell him -- it's always a 'him' -- exactly how far up his asshole I think his bloated head actually is.

Having said that, I would also love to meet Francis of Assissi, and I would love to tell him that I regard his life's story with special reverence.

And don't get me going on the hyper-Protestants. They're worse by a country mile.

Better to take things one by one, one example at a time. Things ain't the same all over.

Same with art. Cavallaro's work offends you, but you haven't seen it. You don't know the man, you are ignorant of his intentions, and you've assumed the worse. That's classically unfair and judgmental -- just the sort of judgmentalism that I betcha Jesus would condemn.

Artists often are contrarians. You have to toughen up a bit and accept that. Galilean magicians are also often contrarians. I think Jesus has more in common with Cavallaro than you are seeing at first glance.

[moggie]

145. Dude, did you just compare yourself to Jesus?

Or "merely" to one of his disciples? :rofl:

[Random_Australian]

146. Yes, because when friends in the NAE think it is nice, blame the atheists.

Yup, them atheists taken' over the dems, and bieng really hostile.

And, you know, those swarms of others who don't get why you are going nuts. But they're just servants of satan.

And, you know, the artist may have been a Christian, but he wasn't a real Christian. (trademark 2007 by dembones dembones)

And, you know, those various non-Catholic Christians that didn't mind, or liked it. They must just be crazy - good thing they have you around to tell them what to think.

And, you know, the multitudes of Catholics who didn't find it offensive. They must just be nuts too. Or stupid. Not like you. Everyone but you is just wrong. Oh yes. Of course.

And it seems that there were, what, three whole people who posted that they were offended from the entire of DU.... which is of course a landslide of people running away from the dems.

Just tell yourself they must not have posted because they'd already gone off to campaign for the repubs out of disgust at how evil everyone but you is.

:)

The fact that you never DID answer posts that were trying to calm things down, and then left when the party was not going your way, means that I'm beginning to suspect that if your argumentative style were music, then it would be comparable to that timeless classic, Chickens in a Vacuum Cleaner, Vol 8.

:hi:

[sui generis]

149. they didn't vote democratic because they're freaks

gay marriage twisted their tits, that's why.

[AllieB]

157. If Christians and Catholics don't vote Democratic

it's not the fault of the people on this thread or on DU. It's the fault of the propaganda emanating from the right-wing media that there's an actual war on Christmas, and that Christians are oppressed. If these people are foolish enough to drink the Kool-Aid, it's not the fault of any atheist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist. In case you haven't noticed, 80% of the US population proclaim Christianity as their religion. If anything, it's the non-Christians that are oppressed/ostracized in mainstream society, especially during the Christmas season and Holy Week.

That being said, I don't think it was in good taste (no pun intended) to open the exhibit during Holy Week. However, the artist has the right to express himself, just as you have the right to be outraged at his art.

[Marrah_G]

181. I find Easter Offensive, you should cancel it.

It's a stolen Holy Day, taken from the pagan people at the tip of a sword by your church. When you paint easter eggs and eat chocolate bunnies you just remember you are celebrating an ancient Fertility Rite.

[varkam]

118. BWAHAHAHA!

:rofl:

[sui generis]

148. what a bunch of crap. What's the insult?

Manufactured borrowed outrage is as tawdry as the "plain vanilla" kind.

DO YOU REALLY THINK JESUS WOULD GIVE A CHOCOLATE SHIT ABOUT THIS? so why do so-called christians, who don't even understand their own damn faith?

[mudesi]

159. What, specifically, are you insulted by? (nm)

[rasputin1952]

162. I kind of figure we shouldn't insult people at all...

but that appears to be passe'.

Some things are taken as insults when they really shouldn't be. It is easy to ridicule others, that is why we do it...insults make us feel superior.

If we can get a rise from someone, we can dig deeper to open the wound a little further; then toss some salt in it just to add a little more pain.

The whole Chocolate Jesus thing was a great marketing ploy by a pretty good artist. Who would have ever heard of this guy if it were not for this piece?

This will all be water under the bridge soon enough...but if people weren't so easily "offended", offenses would drop dramatically.

[saltpoint]

165. Hi, rasputin1952. A friend and I were speaking earlier this evening

about the power of the web in breaking down the barriers between cultures, or within cultures, breaking down viewpoints into manageable, individual doses.

He felt that for the first time, lesbian and gay youth could find affirmation and basic information via the web, so long as they had computer access and a few moments' privacy in the course of their day. And that this was the first time ever so many could be affirmed so convincingly, no matter what their parents, their siblings, their schoolmates, or their pastors had to say about it.

I get a daily art newsletter and look at several opening exhibits from all over the place, just because I have a computer. I didn't know Cavallaro, but I've seen far more explosively controversial art than the Jesus made from chocolate.

The people who rioted when the Danish cartoon was published are up against Modernity. The web sent those images out lickety-split, and when it was evident that a handful of very sensitive Muslims did not care for the depiction of their Prophet, the number of copies sent into cyberspace of those cartoons multiplied several thousandfold. And it happened so swiftly that it must have made the rioters' heads spin.

I think the velocity of controversy is equivalent to Gutenberg's printing press. And I think it's going to change everything.

[rasputin1952]

166. I concur....everything is going to change...

I hope it is a change for the better, but there are nefarious types out there that will be more than happy to post anything they like just because of the anonymity of the Net.

When people figure out that there is more "alikeness" in humanity than disparity, things will get a bit better. People are afraid to learn, afraid to change, afraid to be themselves. For many a year, it was taught that the sun revolved around the earth, it "just had to be God's way." My, how things have changed. Whenever I feel like a need a little humility, I go to the Hubble Heritage site an realize just how minuscule we are in the scheme of things. Our petty differences seem so abstract when viewed from a larger picture.

People are once again rising to the challenge of learning different concepts, most of which don't really affect them in any direct way. Open discussion can resolve almost any problem, and people need to realize that things are not as immediate as they might think it should be. Things take time, planting seeds is the key, the seeds are questions, the fruit that is borne are the answers.

Not long ago, I was discussing abortion w/someone who is anti-abortion. Things were going well as the rapport was set and we were both on level ground with our views. Essentially, I was saying that what a woman did w/her body in Cincinnati had little to do with my life in NE. Then he asked "the" question..."What about the soul involved? You know that each sperm and each egg has half a soul don't you?" I wanted to laugh, but I asked him instead where he got this information from, he told me it was in "in the Bible, someone told me about it." The movement from biology to theology was abrupt at that point.

An open mind is a wonderful asset, the Net, I believe, will open more minds to new knowledge and question many of the old ideologies. This is both a blessing and a curse.

[sui generis]

169. and the choice of materials, gollee. I'm sure wood was

as scandalous a material as chocolate when there was perfectly good carrera marble to be had back in the 14th century.

No, the answer is, there are people who are always going to find ANY excuse to be "persecuted", because it's a finite role where all the rules and behaviors are known, a shoddy stereotype even.

If he recarved that statue in teak, or even marble, those people would STILL be pissing themselves. It's not about the chocolate, at all. It's all about the readiness of some people to assume the crash position of masturbatory outrage and the those same perpetually outraged perpetually chasing their fifteen seconds of fame.

In those people I think there is an inverse proportion of outrage to faith, and you can't substitute one for the other, hard as they try. The worst part is, they do their best to inflict their myopia on everyone else and deter the rest of us from enjoying our human experience in all of its forms.

I don't see them crapping themselves over the injection molded jebuses readily found in every religious bookstore, or the lightbulbed nativity christmas lawn ornaments. They're hypocrites of the very worst kind.

[saltpoint]

170. I love your phrase, "the readiness of some people to assume the crash

position of masturbatory outrage." That is a sizzler, and it's entirely useful here regarding Donahue and the others protesting Cavallaro's work. Odd also that the sexual release from masturbation would assuage some of the self-victimization energy that consumes people who are undone by art, especially "controversial" art.

Stravinksy's RITE OF SPRING set off fist-fights at its premier. So did the Listz B-Minor Sonata. I've tried to play the Listz B-Minor Sonata, and the only person I want to punch in the face is Listz himself. It's an extremely demanding piece technically, and I'd feel a lot better if I had the opportunity to smack him one in the kisser.

The medium can be the message, or not. There's some play in the wheel with the eucharist and an edible medium, but it's dangerous for a society to punish artists for their singular vision. That's why there are artists in the first place, and we shouldn't hassle them for doing their job.

In the wings of this debate I sense the instigation -- or at least the long shadow -- of Savonarolla, the monk who hectored Michelangelo.

[sui generis]

182. try the E-Flat Major - quasi adagio is expansive and lush

and not as frustrating

I'm at the point though where I only play the parts I like. If I have to choose between parts I don't like, I traipse on over to Chopin or Rach or even Prokoviev these days.

Hey check out this piece Csárdás (Dennis Báthory-Kitsz) - I have a manuscript and it's a bear: http://bathory.org/erzscsar.html

[saltpoint]

183. That score strikes me as migraine-inducing. Even for pianists who don't

even suffer from migraine, I mean. "Demanding" doesn't cover it. You can play that? My god you must know your way around the keyboard and then some. Phone your early piano teachers right now and offer thanks. I hung out with some folks at the Wasson Piano Studio in Dayton and was amazed at what they could do.

And I got a chance to hear music I had never heard of. One of the pianos in that studio had been owned by Rachmaninoff. As you might guess, the entire soundboard was balanced and the tones very rich and deep and full. I could do a half-assed job on "Polichinelle" but past that, Rachmaninoff was beyond me.

The E-flat, yes. Very beautiful. And I hear you on Chopin. Chopin is still difficult for me but nothing like Listz's fireworks or Rachmaninoff's rollercoaster for a 16-inch palm spread.

[Critters2]

185. Well said. Thank you. nt

[jgraz]

163. I'm more insulted by the waste of good chocolate

I HOPE somebody ends up eating that. I call dibs on the wiener.

mmmmm....chocolate jesus wiener....aaaaagggh /HOMER

[Zhade]

176. n/m

joke didn't play right, forget it.

[loudestchick]

179. Because it's fun to see them froth at the mouth? Way too sensitive....

[Marrah_G]

180. Putting on my flame suit

Okay let me start off by saying that I am a member of a religion that it is perfectly okay for everyone to make fun of, demonize, make scary movies about, etc. With that comes the realization that not everybody is being intentionally offensive. You really have to grow a thicker skin in a country with so many different faiths. All this energy wasted on a statue made of chocolate when there are far more important things to be concerned about.

Flame me all you want but it is just silly. Unless you are prepared to get outraged everytime a pentagram is portrayed as evil in a film, or someone uses "witch" instead of "bitch" then please spare me the shock over a statue. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Why not put your energy into the things Jesus really spoke about. In fact lemme say this, from the way Jesus was portrayed in the bible I think he would probably think a chocolate statue of himself was kinda funny.

We live in a vast society where everyone is going to find something other people do that makes them uncomfortable. Deal with it.

I would be the first to stand up for you if it were something serious. This just is not that thing.

And one other thing while you are being so fucking self righteous: While your Church was forcing conversion at the point of a blade they also stole our damn holidays. Next time you are painting Easter Eggs you just remember that you are doing it because the Pagans held Fertility Festivals now and the Church felt it easier to turn the masses if they still allowed them "feast days".