Here’s a brief video about it: Religion, Flesh and Power
The site that it’s posted on is a blog, but I haven’t really kicked around on there to see what sort of bias there may be. There’s sound, but only music and the images are rather hard to make out / on the smaller side. If you’re not sure though, please tread at your own peril. I don’t won’t this to be considered not work safe for anyone, although I personally can’t imagine that it would be.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
If it was just a nude chocolate Jesus at a hotel it would get a letter.
[QUOTE]
Mmm… sacrilicious.
(Dope rule #29: ignore a potential Simpsons reference at your own peril).
If it was in a privately owned museum, its display would be nobody else’s business. If it were a public museum, then maybe one could debate the display of religiously-offensive material at taxpayer expense, tho I wonder if Europeans may be more OK with that that Americans are. BUT it was a Church-sponsored museum, so I give a boo & hiss to the blockhead that OK’d it in the first place.
Say, I’m surprised the article includes no image of the painting. Anybody got a link? (Just so we can judge its artistic quality, of course.)
I agree…that work never should have been hung in a Cathedral museum. Of course, I think threats of violence are completely uncalled for, but the Cardinal showed very bad judgement to begin with. IMO, this is a completely different situation from a newspaper printing the cartoons that offended Muslims…if a newspaper printed a copy of this etching to show what the furor was about, I would support that 100%, but I don’t blame the Church in the least for not wanting to display it, and they shouldn’t feel as though they have to.
Trying to draw an equivalence between some anonymous posting from a kook on an internet chat board and fatwas issued by high-level religious figures is kinda stretching it, don’t you think?
The Muhammed cartoons spawned murders, protests and riots, the cartoonists had to go into hiding, and Canadians who published the images are hauled up in front of human rights commissions.
On the other side, we have a second hand account of something someone saw an anonymous person post on a chat board.
Yeah, they’re exactly equivalent.
Can you show me in the bible where Christ advocates terrorism when offended?
So your entire argument rests on the word of the person who’s trying to play the victim. Can you link to these web postings? Can you give some evidence that they exist? Why shouldn’t we assume that Kaufmann is lying?
Not only high-level religious figures, high-level religious figures that govern, Julius II-style.
All religious fanaticism is the same. Christian fanatics have never been any better than Muslim fanatics, they just tend to currently live in better social conditions and and lack as much of the desperation and cultural pressures which generate fanatcism. Any religion is vulnerable to it. The specific theology has nothing to do with it. Theologically, Islam is no better or worse than Christianity, it’s just being reflected in more culturally generated fanaticism at the moment. Christianity still obviously is not free of it, though.
I don’t buy that. There are plenty of desperately poor Catholics in Africs and South America, and they’re not blowing people up in the name of religion. Tibet is not exactly having a grand time of it, yet I don’t see the Dali Lama supplying his people with suicide vests.
The world is full of poor, abused, and disadvantaged people. Of all religions. Islam seems unique in its response.
For that matter, claiming that it’s always poverty and desperation that drives this behaviour doesn’t seem right either. The 9/11 hijackers were reasonably well off. Bin Laden is rich, as are his closest people. The Middle East is awash in money. There is plenty of Islamic violence being homegrown inside wealthy western countries.
Most of the desperately poor Muslims in the world don’t resort to violence either. Even most Palestinian apartheid victims don’t resort to violence. There is nothing special about Christian theology which makes it less prone to fanaticism. You only have to look at the majority of Christian history to know that.
Have pissed off Christians done anything like 9/11,or the Madrid bombings,.or the London 7/11,or the Bali bombings in modern times?
And please spare me the “In historical times the Christians did so and so tripe”
They blow up abortion clinics and gay nightclubs. They threaten to blow up museums over paintings they don’t like. They even waged a war of genocide and systematic rape against Muslims in only the last decade.
Oh, and it isn’t necessary to hijack planes when you have an air force and guided missiles, so that’s kind of a specious point. Christians have so much military power they don’t need to use guerilla tactics.
Yes of course the poor hard done by Palastinians are well known for not murdering civilians at random whether they be Israelis or their own.
Apartheid is about discriminating against people on grounds of race or religion,not discriminating against people who launch rockets and send suicide bombers into civilian areas to murder innocent civilians.
Sorry your "desperately poor Palestinian Apartheid victims "doesn’t jerk any tears from this non Jew and non Israeli.
Would these Palestinian victims who dont resort to violence be in any way those same Palestinians who were seen celebrating 9/11 on film,the same Palestinians who I actually have met who celebrate every successful suicide bomb attack on Israeli civilians ,who celebrate every random rocket attack on Israeli civilian towns ,who celebrate publically and noisely every time a Brit,American,Canadian or any westerner military or civilian gets killed in Afghan or Iraq?
Sorry me old mucker but I feel nothing but contempt for them,I wonder why?
Let’s not forget the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. Terrorist bombing tactics were S.O.P. for decades. Ever heard of Bloody Friday? That was 1972.
I’m usually the first to note that culture has as much or more to do with a response than the specifics of religious doctrine - but saying that the specific theology has nothing to do with it way overstates the case, so much so that the point tends to be lost.
I think Diogenes is right…when you have religion tied up with political power, it dose tend to breed fanaticism, regardless of the religion, and that fanaticism can lead to bad behavior. However, that’s not really relevant to the OP. The OP is specifically talking about violence use as censorship of offensive images. In this particular case, Sam Stone is on the money, IMO, when he says that the reaction can in no way be compared to the reaction to the Danish cartoons.
So if the Mohammed cartoons had depicted the Prophet and his friends joyfully buggering each other in a grotesque parody of some occasion that Muslims find deeply moving, and the worst response from the Islamic world had been some kooks and nuts posting shit on a website, the two situations would be exactly analogous. But hey, let’s not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a little Christian-bashing. :rolleyes:
It may come as a shock to you but most of them don’t.
The guerilla tactics and the terrorism are a result of the apartheid. Without the apartheid, there would be no terrorism.
[quote]
Sorry your "desperately poor Palestinian Apartheid victims "doesn’t jerk any tears from this non Jew and non Israeli.[/.quote]
Obviously, if you think of Palestinans as subhumans, there’s no point trying to talk to you.
I guess you lack either education or humanity. I’m not going to waste my time trying to enlighten you. You’re clearly very comfortable with your predudices.