# Pornografia religiosa: Are you scandalized or is this freedom of speech?



## heidita

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]





> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]
> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]Lo del libro pornográfico publicado por la Junta Socialista de Extremadura y difundido por Internet, pagado con el dinero de los contribuyentes, ha rebasado todos los límites.





> Quienes hayan accedido a ver tales monstruosidades perpetradas contra los símbolos más queridos de los cristianos (Jesucristo, la Santísima Virgen[/FONT][/FONT]






> hoy disculpas "a todo aquel ciudadano que haya podido sentirse dolido o molesto" con la publicación, por parte de la Editora Regional de Extremeña (ERE) de dos libros que contenían fotos con imágenes "pornográficas" de Jesucristo y otras figuras del cristianismo.


 
http://www.lavanguardia.es/gen/2007...ucristo-ere-juan-carlos-rodriguez-ibarra.html

Me llama la atención que dichas imágenes no hayan tenido más relevancia. Cuando se hicieron una pocas caricaturas de la imagen de Mahoma, hubo todo tipo de intervenciones del presidente del gobierno, del Papa....

Se ha leído esto:


> que condene la "falta de respeto" al cristianismo igual que lo hace con el Islam


 

Yo me pregunto esto también.

In Spain, a _pornographic bible_ was published on the web and in books with images of the Virgin Mary, Jesus etc in Pornographic attitudes. Do you think this is freedom of speech? I am surprised this hasn't had any more relevance as the caricatures of Mahoma did. There were comments all over Spain, the president intervened and even the Pope. Why not in this case? Is the catholic church less important, more tolerant or....??[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## maxiogee

Less important, in my opinion. 
Why? Because the members are too wishy-washy about objecting to offence caused.

Is it "freedom of speech"?
I doubt it, really. What is the person who created it 'saying'?

Have they a 'right' to 'say' this thing?
I doubt that anyone has a right to deliberately give offence to anyone else.

Should Christians be offended by it?
Possibly not. It doesn't damage their esteem for these people.

Should society censor it?
Not officially, but personally we can all censor things. Those offended should decline to support that publishing house. Boycotts are often very effective - but they need to be proclaimed and adhered to.

 * I'm not even going to bother clicking that link you gave. It is either in Spanish, and I don't know Spanish, or it is a link to something which may well have an image of the 'creation' on display, and I don't need or wish to see it.


----------



## Etcetera

Heidita, I'm shocked. I have no words for it. 
Freedom of speech is a good thing, but... everything has its borders!


----------



## invictaspirit

Well, as an English Catholic, I am proud of Spain, really.

There is a *quiet dignity* in the reaction, perhaps?  It is freedom of speech...but the best reaction to those who care about these things is a calm smile.  Europeans are not given to screaming in the streets and burning flags and embassies.

The images are just a little attention-seeking and somewhat immature gambit.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
I don't think this is freedom of speech. Those are no beliefs, they are just insults. And they wouldn't dare insult like that Mohammed, Bouddha, the Dalai Lama. Why? 
They just insult Christ, because they know they won't be prosecuted. So easy. They are what the Bible calls "whitered sepulchres".
I'm not a Christian and I feel insulted.
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

I would recommend to simply ignore such things. I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science -- maybe a bad part, but none the less part of the freedom we all revere. The more taboos and limits we create, the easier we are restricted in sitatutions we don't want to be restricted. I believe that religion should not have any special rights in a secular, modern state. 

No one has to watch those pictures. Ignore them, if you do not like them. 

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

I am a Catholic and, certainly, I feel insulted. The images are certainly aiming the Catholicism as a whole. If the author wanted to laugh at religion, he could have aimed at cardinals or bishops or priests. He has focused in the main symbols of Christianity. The thing that disgusts me is that he has picked out what we consider more sacred (the Virgin, Jesuchrist, the Pietà...) with the specific intention to hurt.

If you think this is about "special" protection of religion, imagine similar pictures about Gandhi, Anna Frank, Mother Teresa, Churchill, Pablo Iglesias/Fraga/Tarradellas/Sabino Arana (founders of main Spanish political parties), etc.

I have seen hundreds of jokes and cartoons about Christ. Some of them are funny, others are not and I had no objection (even those openly against religion and/or Christ figure). But this is simply targeting the Christianity, in its broader sense.

I do not want the author to be severely punished (according Spanish law, I think he could be fined or condemned to a slight jail sentence, with automatic parole) and certainly I do not want a hysteric reaction but I do not want to let them passed unnoticed.


----------



## vachecow

Etcetera said:


> Heidita, I'm shocked. I have no words for it.
> Freedom of speech is a good thing, but... everything has its borders!


I agree with Etcetera that this is over the edge, and I can see no reason at all for doing something like that other than to get in the news and piss people off.  Yet at the same time I agree with Kajjo:


> I would recommend to simply ignore such things. I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science -- maybe a bad part, but none the less part of the freedom we all revere.


We cant do anything to stop it, and getting all worked up about it is just going to make those that are already agree even more upset.


----------



## JamesM

vachecow said:


> I agree with Etcetera that this is over the edge, and I can see no reason at all for doing something like that other than to get in the news and piss people off. Yet at the same time I agree with Kajjo:
> 
> We cant do anything to stop it, and getting all worked up about it is just going to make those that are already agree even more upset.


 
I agree with all of the above, and just want to add that the question sets up a false dichotomy.  It can be freedom of speech AND scandalizing.  In fact, freedom of speech is most likely going to lead to some scandalizing expressions of one kind or another.


----------



## maxiogee

As a minor aside to this discussion — some people here seem to be assuming that this is about Catholicism. 

It isn't. 

It's a pan-Christian thing. There's a huge difference.


----------



## Cecilio

I personally think the images in that book are very insulting. The main point in this issue is not artistic freedom but the fact that this book was published with public money by a regional government in Spain. They are politically responsible for it. The Christian taxpayers from Extremadura must know that they have indirectly funded the publication of this book.


----------



## vachecow

I know that here in the US if the government published anything that had such a strong connection to any religion there would be many protesters and all you would hear on the news would be "we need more separation of church and state".


----------



## übermönch

Things like this make me damn happy about living in good old enlighted Europe. Now that Dutch churches are turnt into markets and museums, while the Spanish government funds this art campaign against religious bigotry we can rightfully call ourselves the world's lighthouse. And may this light of ours sooner or later reach every darkest corners of our world - I assume you know of which I speak. 




> Heidita, I'm shocked. I have no words for it.
> Freedom of speech is a good thing, but... everything has its borders!


I for one have no words to express how much I agree with the first part of your statement, etcetera - however, not so on the ending. The border you are talking about - is it blasphemy? In case it is, should we maybe retire all beef from our markets for not to insult hinduists? Shall we ban the word 'Jehova' as it may insult the jews? What about clothing? There are lots of people pretty damn much insulted in their faith by women not wearing proper clothes making the onlookers commit sins by unwilligly producing dirty thoughts. Doesn't it, too, pass the border of inacceptable immorality?


PS.: Are there completely none pornographic scenes described in the very bible?


----------



## JamesM

vachecow said:


> I know that here in the US if the government published anything that had such a strong connection to any religion there would be many protesters and all you would hear on the news would be "we need more separation of church and state".


 
Actually, we have been through a very similar controversary in the late 1980s in the U.S.  Click here for an article on the subject from a person inside the NEA (The National Endowment for the Arts), which has since been gutted out of existence.


----------



## übermönch

Okay, everybody, here's our subject in PDF format. Don't click if you are an infant, however you're spoiled anyway if you already clicked Heiditas link.  It actually contains more than just art/porn, namely a long elaborated introduction. It would be nice if someone could sum it up! Mohammed's Ansigt also did not make any sence when torn out of context after all.


----------



## alexacohen

> I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science -- maybe a bad part, but none the less part of the freedom we all revere.


Really? Do we revere freedom of speech? Then why we cannot say a man is blind and have to say visually impaired? or say he's black if he is so coloured and say instead subsahariano, african american? We are constantly reminded we have to use a politically correct language so as not to give offence to anyone, and watch our words... why, then, this rule does not apply to the rest? If we are reprimanded from saying indio americano because they feel it is an insult, why these people can insult Catholic people and it is OK?


----------



## vachecow

JamesM said:


> Actually, we have been through a very similar controversary in the late 1980s in the U.S.


Thanks James, I found that interesting.  


> Then why we cannot say a man is blind and have to say visually impaired? or say he's black if he is so coloured and say instead subsahariano, african american?


Although I believe that it is wrong to insult anyone based on race/religion/gender/favorite color/etc... I think there is a reason people are more careful not to offend (following up on your example) blind/visually impaired and black/African Americans.  One cannot change their race or the fact that they are disabled, and it is almost impossible to hide.  If you saw me on the street, you would have no idea what religion I am, or if I am religious at all.  Once again, I may be totally wrong here, and still think porn based on  the Bible is not needed.


----------



## tvdxer

Absolutely disgusting.  Am I scandalized?  I wouldn't describe myself as such.  I'm certainly not surprised it came from the Spanish socialists, one of the most vilest political parties today in my opinion.  Am I disgusted?  Yes.  Do I think this is an immature, idiotic, obscene, useless, trashy, tiny-minded weak protest against Christian values and reverence?  Yes.  Do I think this is freedom of speech?  Maybe they are exercising a "liberty" they have under the law, but I don't think such garbage should be allowed under freedom of speech.  It is blasphemy and nothing more, and in my opinion, freedom of speech excludes blasphemy.

Why does it receive less condemnation or news coverage?  For one thing, Christians have shown themselves in modern times to be less susceptible to violent outbursts.  Also, the modern  thought establishment casts Christians as the "persecutors" and Muslims as the "persecuted".  Blasphemy against Christians is a lesser offense because it's against the establishment, while when you blasphemy or even criticize Islam it's an evil racist offense against a persecuted non-Western culture.


----------



## Mate

Querida Heidi: 

"Pornografía religiosa", (o católica, como figura en "La Vanguardia") es en sí un título concebido para escandalizar; predispone mal desde el vamos. 

Me llamó la atención a mí que no soy religioso, así que ya ves.

En mi opinión, ninguna falta de respeto es aceptable. 

Pero qué es falta de respeto y qué no lo es, eso sí que es siempre materia de debate y confrontación.

He rastreado en la red un caso similar ocurrido en la Argentina hace unos tres años.

León Ferrari, un destacado y veterano artista, presentó en el Centro Cultural Recoleta, dependiente del Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, una retrospectiva de su obra pictórica. 

Entre los cuadros había uno en particular, “La Civilización Occidental y Cristiana", que mostraba un cristo crucificado en un bombardero estadounidense. 

Esta obra había sido presentada originalmente en el premio Di Tella, en 1965, y estaba inspirada en la visión que Ferrari tenía acerca de la guerra de Vietnam.

Voy a dejar a consideración de los estimados foreros lo manifestado por Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Premio Nobel de la Paz (1980), en relación a la clausura de la muestra.

Texto completo de Pérez Esquivel aquí.

I apologize for not giving an English version of the above this time. My opinions on such a touchy subject (religion) in a language that is not my own have recently led to bitter comments (attacks?) in another thread.

Saludos - Mate


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> As a minor aside to this discussion — some people here seem to be assuming that this is about Catholicism.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> It's a pan-Christian thing. There's a huge difference.



It seems very Catholic to me.

It's very much in the manner of Catholic "Holy Pictures". 

Protestants aren't big on Saints, and it's not in the style of an Orthodox icon.


----------



## lizzeymac

That is one of the stupidest pieces of "Art" I have ever seen - and I like modern, cranky, offensive, political art.
It is about as avant garde & rebellious as a kid picking his nose to gross someone out.
I am surprised that tax money was used to fund it - not just because of the religious content [in Catholic Spain] - but because it's xxx. It's not interesting, it doesn't seem to contain a significant idea, it's not particularly well-photographed - at least Robert Mapplethorpe could compose a shot. It isn't original - is Sr. M the new darling of the Art World? 
That is contains naked people in poses of Christian images is clearly meant to offend & criticize & belittle. I personally would consider this free speech in spite of that. The fact that such offensive junk was funded makes wonder who is reviewing the art submissions. Are you telling me there there is no better art to fund in Spain? I find that hard to believe. That fact that it will distress so many people & yet it has nothing original to say makes it truly bad "Art."


----------



## Etcetera

Brioche said:


> It seems very Catholic to me.
> 
> It's very much in the manner of Catholic "Holy Pictures".
> 
> Protestants aren't big on Saints, and it's not in the style of an Orthodox icon.


The last thing I thought about was that Spain is a Catholic country. The style doesn't matter; it's the idea that makes me sick.


----------



## Kajjo

alexacohen said:


> Really? Do we revere freedom of speech? Then why we cannot say a man is blind and have to say visually impaired?


You are right. We can say "blind" without any problem. I am a vocal opponent of political correctness. We do not need to change the words, we need to change what people believe in. There is nothing bad at all about clear, precise and straightforward language.



> why these people can insult Catholic people and it is OK?


Please explain why this is an insult and not just a stupid semi-pornographic, misdirected piece of art?

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> It is blasphemy and nothing more, and in my opinion, freedom of speech excludes blasphemy.


Really? I never would dare to say that individual religious beliefs are more important than the universal right to liberty. Do you include all religions or only the three largest? Do you include in Europe and US only Christianity or even all sects like Last Witnesses?

Religion is a very personal thing and completely independent from our modern Western states. Why should religion have such a special position?

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Someone sent me a PM addressing a comment of mine.
In ordert to reply properly to the message I had to look at the content - despite saying I had no desire to - thanks!   

I'll post my reply here as it still seems relevant to the geenral discussion and to my comment about the pan-Christian nature of the offence.


			
				PM said:
			
		

> Thanks!  I had said, clearly, I thought, that i had no desire to view this stuff.
> 
> But, having done so I see a load of images based on either Biblical or pre-Reformation Christian references. Yes, the "worship" of saints is particularly Catholic, but respect for them, and the concept of them as role-models is pan-Christian surely?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony


​How can people look at this stuff and decide that it is solely an offence to Catholics?


----------



## Cecilio

Kajjo said:


> We do not need to change the words, we need to change what people believe in.



Really? Who is this "we"? Why should "we" change what people believe in?


----------



## mirx

I didn't even dare look at the pictures, but disgusted with the whole idea all the same.

It is indeed a very disrespectul act, more so when it is coming from the government. Isn't the government supposed to care for the interests of its citizens? Why do they publish such a thing knowing that many poeple may (will) get offended?

I am shocked too!!!. and I am a non-believer but I do believe that every community deserves respect, a huge part of the Spanish population are Catholics and many more are Christ's followers, so I just don't understand.

Doesn't freedom finish when someone else's freedom start?
So, How can you call this freedom of speech, when it has all the intention to harm some third party?

And Fernando, I fully agree with you.


----------



## GEmatt

I don't know Spanish either, so I couldn't get much background, but the only thing that really shocked me is that all this was funded using the taxpayer's money. It sends the message that everything local, from institutions to infrastructure, is running to such a state of polished efficiency, that figures in government imagine they can start channelling citizens' hard-earned money into this sort of enterprise. Seems a tad misguided.

As for the images themselves, I have to agree with lizzeymac. They take their effect from 'shock value', which is just seeking to draw attention to something, but that 'something' is a puzzle, here (unless it's Mr. Muñoz himself). It'd be a whole lot clearer to me if each picture carried the logo 'United Colors of Benetton' in one corner. I don't personally find them offensive at all, though. Only a bit daft. Is it freedom of speech? Sure it is. Like the Mohammed cartoons, these are not particularly responsible or sensitive, but noone ever said art (or what passes for it) had to or was supposed to be.


----------



## alexacohen

Hi Vache:


> ... it is wrong to insult anyone based on race/religion/gender/favorite color/etc... (....) One cannot change their race or the fact that they are disabled, and it is almost impossible to hide


Yes, it is wrong. But the fact is that this trash was published in Spain, where a great majority of the people are Roman Catholics. Whoever the author is knew perfectly well this... 
And the fact that it has been published by a government department (i. e. paid with the taxes of us all) is all the more insulting.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

Kajjo:


> Please explain why this is an insult and not just a stupid semi-pornographic, misdirected piece of art?


By the way, it's not a "piece of "Art". You have only to see any of Michelangelo's works and decide. And it is an insult because 
it was created to be so. As I've said before, Spain is full of believers in the Catholic Faith. And this xxx was created just to shock and disgust them. It has no talent, no imagination, no creativity, nothing
to say. If in the sacred name of freedom of speech had to be published, it should *not* have been with public money.
Alexa


----------



## ernest_

In my opinion, it is the duty of every man of science and reason, or anyone who has not yet lost all hope for mankind, to fight back and sabotage those who dehumanise human beings, trying to turn them into senseless stooges with silly promises of a better afterlife, for a profit. While I don't approve the use of physical violence, psychological warfare is fair enough.

To all those criticising the public funding of this particular work, I'll tell you something: the Spanish Catholic Church is almost entirely tax-funded. Even though theoretically this country has no official religion, every year the state gives this dubious organisation millions of euros, for who knows what reason. We atheists, as well as the followers of other rival sects, are thus forced to give our money to these people, money that they then use to finance their outrageous, hyper-nationalistic hate-speech, amongst other evil activities.


----------



## maxiogee

übermönch said:


> There are lots of people pretty damn much insulted in their faith by women not wearing proper clothes making the onlookers commit sins by unwilligly producing dirty thoughts. Doesn't it, too, pass the border of inacceptable immorality?
> 
> .


 


alexacohen said:


> übermönch:
> 
> Right. And while we travelled in their countries we should walk covered from head to toe so as not to shock them. Of course they have the liberty of coming into a country where women can walk with a minimum of clothing. And be shocked. But if they feel so scandalized and shocked and don't want to commit any sin, they still have freedom. The freedom to leave.
> Alexa


 
What a lack of understanding that response shows.
Those who object to the clothing of some people are not automatically from another country, and should not have to leave.
Do you know so little of the thinking of highly religious people of all persuasions, and of elderly people of a different social and moral background, to not realise that many people in many countries frequently find women's clothing a cause of sadness - to say the very least?


----------



## alexacohen

Ernest:
You are not forced to give the Catholic Church any money at all. You just have to cross "I don't want my tax money to be given to the R, C. Church" when you fill in your income tax paper.


> We atheists, as well as the followers of other rival sects, are thus forced to give our money to these people,


I am not a Christian, but I'd rather give my tax money to the Roman Catholic Church, than to these people who publish such xxx.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

Maxiogee:


> What a lack of understanding that response shows


It's you who don't understand... simply because you don't live where I live... 
And we're wandering off topic. 
Alexa


----------



## Talant

invictaspirit said:


> [.....]
> The images are just a little attention-seeking and somewhat immature gambit.



I fully agree with you. The "artist" has taken the easy way to fame, not to work and develop a new line of work, but to appear in as many newspapers as possible. If the Catholic Church complains, then he gets even more publicity.

Also, he will sell his work, as some people will always be against the Church, without even thinking about the subject. (This happens also with political parties, sport teams,... "our side is always right, your side is always wrong")

He says that he is acting against the mistakes and wrongdoings of the Church (as a human organisation, it has committed some huge mistakes all over its life), however his pictures don't concern the priests, the Pope,.... who have done the wrong.

Bye


----------



## ben119

alexacohen said:


> Hello:
> *They just insult Christ, because they know they won't be prosecuted*. So easy.
> Alexa


You have no idea how this makes me proud ! I am from a catholic tradition, culture, and I am proud to see that this culture has evolved so much. 
It takes a lot of confidence, wisdom and work to ignore insults.


----------



## heidita

I am not surprised that people feel deeply about this topic. I wonder what would have happened if a Muslim had dared to publish a book with pornographic images of Mahoma. Jesus!! Another _dead man walking_!!

Well, I am scandalized not only because of the pictures themselves (not being a catholic myself) but because it was paid with taxes. 

I don't think freedom, as some people argue, is slapping others in the face, or xxxx


----------



## GEmatt

heidita said:


> I don't think freedom, as some people argue, is slapping others in the face, or xxxx.


Who has argued that?


----------



## heidita

Kajjo said:


> I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science --
> Kajjo


 



GEmatt said:


> Who has argued that?


 
I understood this comment as such. Liberty of art? My shoe!

I insist:



> I don't think freedom is slapping others in the face, or xxxx.


 
I think these pictures are exactly that.


----------



## ampurdan

I don’t understand very much the purpose of this thread. The question draws an opposition about freedom of speech and scandal, as if they were incompatible. However, in the body of the post there’s really no question about the boundaries of freedom of speech. Instead, we are directed to the purportedly scandalous outraging stuff. Food for thought, indeed. One could be led to the impression that the thread starter complains about the fact that these pictures (certainly quite unnoticed in Spain, at least until now) haven’t triggered the same far-reaching effects as the Danish cartoons. Perhaps these images should have incurred a similar wrath. The wrath should have forced the Government and even the Pope to step in… Why! The artist himself wouldn’t have done better to promote his product.

Fortunately, this scenario is highly improbable, since it’s just a local issue, even though we’ve turned it into something I think it’s not. And, let aside international politics and the economic interests at stake, mocking what’s sacred for the traditional religion of your country, which one might have experienced, even being an atheist, is not the same thing as mocking what’s sacred for other religions, with little knowledge of it. (Some years from now, it may be quite different in this respect in Spain). I think there was really no need to bring this issue to this forum as a matter of “they wouldn’t have let this happen to _the others_”.

The only thing that is polemic about this issue, in my opinion, is the public funding. These images don’t bother me at all, they even amuse me, but I think that public funds would be better allocated elsewhere. The Consejero in question should have been a little sharper and not have thrown himself like scraps of meat to the jaws of the opposition (which, by the way, might have funded it all the same if they happened to be ruling now). Besides, what’s the fun in a piece of art when a politician writes an introduction to it? Ok, art has always needed patrons but methinks that the time has come for art consumers to request a little more artistic independence… That’s my concern about this issue.


----------



## panjabigator

Well, I am not able to click on the link because I am in a public location, and that's all I need right now...people to come flocking over to gawk at internet porn on my screen.  But judging on the sentiments of my fellow foreros, I most certainly feel that it is offensive.  Religion is always the touchiest topic, and incorporating pornography into something that denigrates the crux of Christianity to be offensive is wrong --something we can all agree on.  I know that even as a not-very-religious Sikh, if I were presented with pornography that displayed my Gurus in a similar fashion, all hell would break loose (and I wouldn't be passive aggressive either).

Are there any provocative images in Christianity which have since been sanitized and removed?  Hinduism is chock full of sexual images depicting deities in various poses, but they are either sanitized out of public display or ignored by the public.


----------



## Etcetera

panjabigator said:


> Are there any provocative images in Christianity which have since been sanitized and removed?


No, at least I can't think of anything like that.


----------



## GEmatt

heidita said:


> Originally Posted by *Kajjo*
> 
> 
> I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science --
> Kajjo
> 
> 
> 
> I understood this comment as such. Liberty of art? My xxx!
> 
> I insist: I don't think freedom is slapping others in the face, or xxxx.
> 
> I think these pictures are exactly that.
Click to expand...

In the first case you're talking about assault, in the second case, you're talking about vandalism, and no matter how I try, I can't see these pictures as being evidence that the photographer or artistic team or whatever are guilty of some misdemeanour. I understand the spirit behind the scatological scorn voiced here and elsewhere, and yes, as mentioned, I can well imagine how some may find them distasteful, disgusting, insensitive, and all the rest. But equating the pictures to a crime is ludicrous.

I don't know if I'd put science and the press in the same category, but don't you think it is in some measure the job of art to stir people up - give them a shock, if that's what it takes - and make them think? Or should art only be permitted to be artistic about things that are guaranteed not to offend or shock us?


----------



## Kajjo

Cecilio said:


> Kajjo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not need to change the words, we need to change what people believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who is this "we"? Why should "we" change what people believe in?
Click to expand...

I meant that *if* you favor political correctness, you should not try to change words, but opinion. Just replacing words does not help at all. I agree with you that in many instances not even the change of opinions might be necessary. However, in areas like racism or discrimination of disabled people I would like to see that people change the way they think -- but it is absolutely useless to teach them to use other words for the same issue.

Sorry for not having expressed my message clear enough.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

heidita said:


> I am not surprised that people feel deeply about this topic. I wonder what would have happened if a Muslim had dared to publish a book with pornographic images of Mahoma. Jesus!! Another _dead man walking_!!


You are right and I believe the Western world should demonstrate that pieceful ignorance is the right way to behave and not killing and harming innocent people just because they are from the same country. Let us behave civilised even if the offense might not be.



> Well, I am scandalized not only because of the pictures themselves (not being a catholic myself) but because it was paid with taxes.


I agree that this is the central scandal. It happens in all countries that so-called art is funded by the public without any real public interest or advantage.



> I don't think freedom, as some people argue, is slapping others in the face, or xxxx.


You are right here. But while literal "xxxx" cannot be easily ignored, this leflet could 
be ignored. 

Kajjo


----------



## übermönch

heidita said:


> I am not surprised that people feel deeply about this topic. I wonder what would have happened if a Muslim had dared to publish a book with pornographic images of Mahoma. Jesus!! Another _dead man walking_!!


Just think of what would happen if some rockstar told he was greater than mohammed. 



			
				kajjo said:
			
		

> It happens in all countries that so-called art is funded by the public without any real public interest or advantage.


Hey, artists also pay taxes and have own interessts. If art was only as respected and supported as religion is... well, we'd live in an artsy world 
xxxx


----------



## Talant

panjabigator said:


> Are there any provocative images in Christianity which have since been sanitized and removed?  Hinduism is chock full of sexual images depicting deities in various poses, but they are either sanitized out of public display or ignored by the public.



In fact there are, but not many. If you read the Bible, there are some very sexual scenes. One of the strongest concern Lot and his daughters. However they are usually forgotten (it was clearly portrayed as a sin).

I've seen some of the pictures, and at least one of them is a photograph of a woman breastfeeding a man (St Antonio, I believe). I've seen that very same scene in a old painting and it hasn't been burnt yet.

A little sexuality is not bad, it's even healthy, but most of the photographs were pretty over the edge. A couple of those pictures with a priest instead of Christ would be as effective as an art form a lot less offensive to Christians.


----------



## sir archie

They are probably feeling happy as they have had a little of their own back after two thousand years of interference from religion.


----------



## cuchuflete

Is this freedom of speech?
No, it's one artist's idea of art.

Am I scandalized?
No, I see it as an attempt to be scandalously provocative and insulting to the beliefs of many people,
and it obviously succeeds at being scandalously provocative and insulting.  It is so blatant that it doesn't
scandalize me.  It makes me wonder why the artist is so hostile to a particular religion that he or she obviously knows well.

Is it pornography?Not for me...as it does nothing to stimulate me or arouse me in an erotic or sexual way.​Is it offensive or in bad taste?  Personally and subjectively, I find it disagreeable.  I would not attempt to censor it because I dislike it.  The images in many famous works of art are offensive.  Consider Picasso's Guernica and Hieronymous Bosch's Garden of Delights, for example.  Look at José Clemente Orozco's Dartmouth Murals.​Having seen the copies of the photographs in the linked site, would I go to see the exhibition, or look at it again on a web site?  No.  I have seen that the artist has chosen to distort images which are sacred for many people, in a way that will be highly offensive to many people.  

Is there a problem with government/taxpayer funding of this?  Is there a problem with government/taxpayer funding of subsidies for industries?
 Is there a problem with government/taxpayer funding of military misadventures?  
 Is there a problem with government/taxpayer funding of corrupt government leaders?    Is there a problem with government/taxpayer funding of ministries that provide the "service" of censorship, supposedly for public welfare?  ​I don't like the photographs.  I don't like state support of religion, or state support of attacks on religion.

I have a vote, and can express my likes and dislikes without hysteria.


----------



## lizzeymac

heidita said:


> I am not surprised that people feel deeply about this topic. *I wonder what would have happened if a Muslim had dared to publish a book with pornographic images of Mahoma. Jesus!! Another dead man walking*!!
> 
> Well, I am scandalized not only because of the pictures themselves (not being a catholic myself) but because it was paid with taxes.
> I don't think freedom, as some people argue, is slapping others in the face, or xxxx



I can see how much this publication has  distressed you & I'm sorry for that but the scenario you mention has happened, several times in fact. The most famous instance was not pornographic pictures, but something that is comparable to most traditional muslims.  Do you remember a book called The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie?  It was a work of fiction about the Prophet Mohammed p.b.o.h. & his wives & it was extraordinarily blasphemous to muslims.  I thought it was a good book but I am not muslim. Many Imams issued fatwas calling for his death & Rushdie had to go into hiding for years & still lives a very careful life. There are other artist, filmmakers,writers living under similar threat from the leaders of their own religion.  That's not the way you want the world to be, is it?   Be angry about this crappy art & the misuse of peoples hard-earned money, write letters or petitions of protest to whomever - but consider that a restriction on other peoples freedoms can easily become a restriction on your freedoms. You can see from the reactions in this thread alone how impotent & pitiful this publication is, that it will have no lasting effect. 

The entire concept of the government funding both anti-religious art _and_ the Catholic Church confuses me on so many levels.


----------



## JazzByChas

I will say that "religion" in the classic sense, and pornography, are mutually exclusive.  Most religions that I know of do not condone pornography.

I am cognisant, of course, that there are religions that worship the devil/satan/whatever you call the source of evil, and they might certainly promote pornographic material.  But these, by most definitions, are cults.


----------



## ampurdan

lizzeymac said:


> The entire concept of the government funding both anti-religious art _and_ the Catholic Church confuses me on so many levels.


 
International treaties with the Holy See (1978, I think) establish that Spain will allocate a budgetary item to finance the Catholic Church in Spain. The same Treaty planned that this financing system be replaced by a more separation-of-Church-and-State-like self-financing system for the Church. However, the successive rightwing and leftwing Governments have done few to modify this (I think that the Church and the Goverment reached and agreement last year, but I'm not sure about its contents).

On the other hand, the Spanish Government, as the French one, has a Ministry of Culture and so do the Governments of the Autonomous Regions within Spain. This Ministry funds Art. I guess there's much bureaucracy and, every now and then, politics involved in the procedure of getting a subsidy. However, funding does not normally include that a member of the Governments writes an introduction to an exhibition, I think.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]In Spain, a _pornographic bible_ was published on the web and in books with images of the Virgin Mary, Jesus etc in Pornographic attitudes. Do you think this is freedom of speech? I am surprised this hasn't had any more relevance as the caricatures of Mahoma did. There were comments all over Spain, the president intervened and even the Pope. Why not in this case? Is the catholic church less important, more tolerant or....??
> [/FONT][/FONT]


I had a quick look at the images. I didn't care for the poo photo but I can see what is being said there. I don't necessarily agree that this is a valid artistic method but that is the nature of art.

I don't know if this falls under the blanket of the freedom of speech illusion because I couldn't figure out what is being said. There's a fair bit of narcissistic Oedipus and some strange juxtapositions with a few weird examples of altruism mixed in so it is definitely art.

It is not drawing any flack because it is art from within a deeply Christian society. Were this to originate in a non Christian society it would be howled down from the rooftops and rightly so. 

No society has the right to mock the religion of another society.

Every society should have the right to examine it's own religion in any way it wants.

It is apparent that Spanish religious society is mature enough and confident enough to ignore this nonsense. I am damned if I can see any potentially memorable images. Perhaps there has been a subtle tweaking of the text to add insightful depths that the images can not dream of doing. It is a gross compliment to call those images two dimensional. They are shallower than the gene pool of a bigot.



heidita said:


> Are you scandalized or is this freedom of speech?


A couple of them caused me to have a bit of a slippery grip on me lunch for a while but they didn't scandalise me as everybody depicted seemed to be physically consenting adults.
I thought that the shemale Jesus was cute. A bit of religion's feminine side on display. It's funny to see a rug on the mantle piece and a French Polished map of Tassie.

This is confirmation for me that art should not be state funded. If somebody has something that they think is valid they should put their own resources behind it or arrange private funding. This type of peer review would perhaps result in a little less _merde _shallow art.

.,,


----------



## mrbilal87

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]As a Muslim, my personal response to this is simple: disrespecting any religious belief is not tolerable in my opinion and associating pornography with Jesus and Mary is a level of disrespect that can't be validated. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression only when respect and consideration is given. If there's no respect or consideration, then it's not freedom of speech. It's just disrespect.

But I also believe it would be better for us as individuals if we learn to ignore such ignorance, because if it was the author's intention to make offensive, pornographic jokes about Catholicism, he/she likely knew there was something inappropriate about that, so he just made his own bed to sleep in.[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]As a Muslim, my personal response to this is simple: disrespecting any religious belief is not tolerable in my opinion and associating pornography with Jesus and Mary is a level of disrespect that can't be validated. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of artistic expression only when respect and consideration is given. If there's no respect or consideration, then it's not freedom of speech. It's just disrespect.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]But I also believe it would be better for us as individuals if we learn to ignore such ignorance, because if it was the author's intention to make offensive, pornographic jokes about Catholicism, he/she likely knew there was something inappropriate about that, so he just made his own bed to sleep in.[/FONT][/FONT]


Freedom of speech with "respect", is not freedom at all.How is one meant to show ones dis respect, in such a case?


----------



## mrbilal87

sir_archie said:
			
		

> Freedom of speech with "respect", is not freedom at all.How is one meant to show ones dis respect, in such a case?



Well, to me, freedom of speech is respecting others beliefs even though you may not agree with it. I may not agree with what someone else believes but I most certainly wouldn't make statements or images to disrespect what that person believes.


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> Well, to me, freedom of speech is respecting others beliefs even though you may not agree with it. I may not agree with what someone else believes but I most certainly wouldn't make statements or images to disrespect what that person believes.


Then where in lies your freedom?


----------



## mrbilal87

sir archie said:


> Then where in lies your freedom?



Freedom to disagree. "Disagree" and "disrespect" are not synonymous.


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> Freedom to disagree. "Disagree" and "disrespect" are not synonymous.


Of course not. 
 But if you grant true freedom, you allow disrespect, as you allow people to be free , to do what they will. You seem to want to posess freedom.to have it for yourself but not for others.


----------



## mrbilal87

sir archie said:


> Of course not.
> But if you grant true freedom, you allow disrespect, as you allow people to be free , to do what they will. You seem to want to posess freedom.to have it for yourself but not for others.



Well, I never said we didn't _have_ the freedom to disrespect as well, but if you do choose to disrespect others, you probably shouldn't expect results in your favour.

For example: I may not agree with everyone on this forum about everything, but when I do disagree, I try to be respectable of that person's opinion. I don't think I'd have my account much longer if I choose to insult and harass those I disagree with.


----------



## Athaulf

mrbilal87 said:


> Well, to me, freedom of speech is respecting others beliefs even though you may not agree with it. I may not agree with what someone else believes but I most certainly wouldn't make statements or images to disrespect what that person believes.



So if you were asked to comment on the beliefs of, say, some blatant neo-Nazis, you would take care to emphasize that although you disagree with them, you don't mean to imply any disrespect towards their beliefs?


----------



## vachecow

mrbilal87 said:


> Well, I never said we didn't _have_ the freedom to disrespect as well, but if you do choose to disrespect others, you probably shouldn't expect results in your favour.


I agree with mrblial on this one.  There shouldn't be laws against things such as religious-based porn because people have the right to do that.  However, something so offensive to so many people shouldn't be published/funded by the government, and should probably be discouraged by the powers that be.


----------



## mrbilal87

Athaulf said:


> So if you were asked to comment on the beliefs of, say, some blatant neo-Nazis, you would take care to emphasize that although you disagree with them, you don't mean to imply any disrespect towards their beliefs?



Well, I wouldn't say things like they're all stupid and they all must burn in hell. I would convey my disagreement in an honest, respectable manner. In the educated world who listens to that anyway?


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> Well, I never said we didn't _have_ the freedom to disrespect as well, but if you do choose to disrespect others, you probably shouldn't expect results in your favour.
> 
> For example: I may not agree with everyone on this forum about everything, but when I do disagree, I try to be respectable of that person's opinion. I don't think I'd have my account much longer if I choose to insult and harass those I disagree with.


A small point, 
 I think that it is" I try to be respectable *towards*that person's opinion."Or possible "*of *that per........"
As long as we all have the freedom to be disrespectful and are do not have our freedoms held in by the religious amongst us , who claim that *they* are in the right because God told them so, then all is well.
 If we all try, I am sure we will get along.So , I hope that you will continue to behave in such a manner to those who wish to publish religious pornography.


----------



## sir archie

vachecow said:


> I agree with mrblial on this one. There shouldn't be laws against things such as religious-based porn because people have the right to do that. However, something so offensive to so many people shouldn't be published/funded by the government, and should probably be discouraged by the powers that be.


 
 Why? If it is publicly funded, it is paid for by the infadel as wellas the believer. Please can you clarify?


----------



## mrbilal87

sir archie said:


> A small point,
> I think that it is" I try to be respectable *towards*that person's opinion."Or possible "*of *that per........"
> As long as we all have the freedom to be disrespectful and are do not have our freedoms held in by the religious amongst us , who claim that *they* are in the right because God told them so, then all is well.
> If we all try, I am sure we will get along.So , I hope that you will continue to behave in such a manner to those who wish to publish religious pornography.



Again my point is as long as we continue taking advantage of our freedom to disrespect others, there's always going to be a back-and-forth.


----------



## vachecow

I believe that a company or a citizen has a right to do just about whatever they want, unless it causes physical harm to someone/their property.  I also believe that the government's job is to do what is best for the people as a whole (although the US government isn't very good at this).  The specific porn that we are talking about doesn't do any good for the country.  The number of people who appreciate it are probably outnumbered by the people that are offended.  So, they stepped over a line.


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> Again my point is as long as we continue taking advantage of our freedom to disrespect others, there's always going to be a back-and-forth.


so , what you mean by* freedom* is limited freedom is it not?



vachecow said:


> I believe that a company or a citizen has a right to do just about whatever they want, unless it causes physical harm to someone/their property. I also believe that the government's job is to do what is best for the people as a whole (although the US government isn't very good at this). The specific porn that we are talking about doesn't do any good for the country. The number of people who appreciate it are probably outnumbered by the people that are offended. So, they stepped over a line.


how about the people who counldn`t care less?



vachecow said:


> I believe that a company or a citizen has a right to do just about whatever they want, unless it causes physical harm to someone/their property. I also believe that the government's job is to do what is best for the people as a whole (although the US government isn't very good at this). The specific porn that we are talking about doesn't do any good for the country. The number of people who appreciate it are probably outnumbered by the people that are offended. So, they stepped over a line.


And waht do you mean it " doesn`t do any god to the country" can you clarify. I am thinking in the context of Picaso and Goya.

sorry GOOD, not god. How could I make that typo , above all others under the circumstances.


----------



## mrbilal87

sir archie said:


> so , what you mean by* freedom* is limited freedom is it not?



You must think I'm trying to limit other's freedom. I'm not. I believe since we all have a free will, we're free to do whatever it is we want. But I also believe that every action we take has a reaction. If you intentionally disrespect any group of people, they have a right to react to that disrespect.


----------



## sir archie

mrbilal87 said:


> You must think I'm trying to limit other's freedom. I'm not. I believe since we all have a free will, we're free to do whatever it is we want. But I also believe that every action we take has a reaction. If you intentionally disrespect any group of people, they have a right to react to that disrespect.


to react respectfully I hope?


----------



## vachecow

sir archie said:


> how about the people who counldn`t care less?


Then they should be pissed that the government is wasting money.  

In all seriousness, I know it doesn't and won't ever work like that.  Its just how I think it should work.


----------



## mrbilal87

sir archie said:


> to react respectfully I hope?



Yes, and disrespectfully, if you want to consider freedom and rights.


----------



## sir archie

vachecow said:


> Then they should be pissed that the government is wasting money.
> 
> In all seriousness, I know it doesn't and won't ever work like that. Its just how I think it should work.


I am very sorry , I don`t think that you have answered my question.


----------



## sir archie

Brioche said:


> It seems very Catholic to me.
> 
> It's very much in the manner of Catholic "Holy Pictures".
> 
> Protestants aren't big on Saints, and it's not in the style of an Orthodox icon.


 
For centuaries, the Church has used soft porn to leur-in and entertain the Faithful.
One only has to think of Christ hanging on the cross( and there are ancient and totally naked examples of that image).I would particularly refer you to the painting of Christ on the Cross by Goya.
Also St Sebastian in his loin cloth, pinnioned to a tree by arrows, long held to be a homoerotic icon,St Barbara, having her breast sliced off above many a High Altar, and even The Blessed Vigin Mary herself, bear breasted in a stable full of men, in many a Flemish tryptich.
 Perhaps the most well know example of the Churches use or porn, is the most famous part of The Vatican , the Sistine Chaple.,its walls and cieling strewn with rything, twinsting , naked bodies.
 Just because it is Great Art, it doesn`t take away from it being porn.
 I believe Pope Sixtus(?) insisted that it should have such a quality, it was part of it`s sophistication, that such religious works would stir  all of the sences.To make one aware of ones humanity perhaps, or simply to show off.That is why he employed Michael Angelo, all of who`s reputations went befor him. As was the case with Caravaggio, another famous ,and if not greater religious pornographer.
 It is a bit rich in the face of all of that to hear the complaints of the Faithful now,about these rather poor modern examples from Spain.


----------



## heidita

sir archie said:


> It is a bit rich in the face of all of that to hear the complaints of the Faithful now, about these rather poor modern examples from Spain.


 
I agree with you on the "poor" bit. 

Nevertheless how you can see anything sexually implicit in the Jesus on the cross by Goya I have just looked up, is beyond me. 

The fact is that there have certainly been religious paintings with an explicit certain sexual connotation, which is certainly in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 

This "book" though was published with the intention of supplying a pornographic look on sacred images. Explicitly.


----------



## Kajjo

heidita said:


> Nevertheless how you can see anything sexually implicit in the Jesus on the cross by Goya I have just looked up, is above me.


I agree. I do not see any particular sexual connotation, too.



> This "book" though was published with the intention of supplying a pornographic look on sacred images. Explicitly.


Right. It was intended to provoke and, probably, to offend and insult. I do neither like the photos nor do I think such insults will do any good to our world. Still, I think the best way would be to ignore such people. They want to provoke. Don't fulfill their intentions!

By the way, there is a plethora of sexually aspired and nude images of Jesus available on the net. Each single one could lead to a similar outrage, but it usually doesn't because it is ignored. 

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

> Con respecto a las acusaciones de irreverencia de mal gusto hacia la Iglesia Católica, el fotógrafo niega que haya querido ofender a nadie, “sino criticar”.


 aquí


Another minor (?) aspect of the scandal-



> _*The books were published several years ago*_, but the right-wing Popular Party has seized on the issue with two months to go before regional and local elections in overwhelmingly Catholic Spain.


 source


----------



## John-Paul

Didn't someone say: religion is porn for the masses?


----------



## heidita

cuchuflete said:


> aquí
> 
> 
> Another minor (?) aspect of the scandal-
> 
> source


 
Spanish source (cuchuflete, I was not able to open your link)



I have found a page which shows the photos in full. Please do not click on the link if you are not prepared to what you may see. the ones shown on the first page were the _innocent_ ones. These are *really* disgusting.

It is true that the right wing party PP has taken advantage of this scandal. It doesn't make it less a scandal in my opinion. 

  http://jam-montoya.es/sancto/fotos.htm  

(please have a look, moderators, I don't know if you see them fit to be on this page!!)


----------



## cuchuflete

Since some people have decided to adopt the role of art critic, aesthetic expert, and social commentator  and historian all in one with remarks like "One of the greatest examples of the Jesuits use of soft porn to win back the heretics", may I suggest that if they find sexual stimulation in the Montoya exhibit catalogue, or the other linked images, they might also be aroused by a jar of peanut butter or a toothbrush.  

They are, of course, entitled to get stimulated by whatever images they like.  Projecting those personal
opinions to a religious order is silly.  Like certain exhibition catalogues, such remarks are designed to be
scandalous, and are deserving of just as much—or as little—serious attention.


----------



## cuchuflete

Heidita, the link works for me, but try this instead:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1084924

Here is the other link, just in case anyone is having difficulties-

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...15/03/2007&pass+"J+A+M+Montoya"&hl=en&strip=0



heidita said:


> Spanish source (cuchuflete, I was not able to open your link)
> 
> 
> 
> I have found a page which shows the photos in full. Please do not click on the link if you are not prepared to what you may see. the ones shown on the first page were the _innocent_ ones. These are *really* disgusting.
> 
> It is true that the right wing party PP has taken advantage of this scandal. It doesn't make it less a scandal in my opinion.
> 
> http://jam-montoya.es/sancto/fotos.htm
> 
> (please have a look, moderators, I don't know if you see them fit to be on this page!!)


----------



## GEmatt

> social commenta*tor* and historian all in one


 

Thanks for posting the whole collection, heidita. Whatever the cause, it's refreshing to know we're as good at debasing what's sacred to us as we are at debasing what's sacred to others.


----------



## badgrammar

The pictures themselves don't scandalize me, but they are gross and well, just plain tacky.  The scandal here is surely the squandering of tax money funds on such art.  Should they be somehow illegal?  No, I don't think so myself, as I was raised in the by-hell-or-by-high-water school of free speech and liberty of expression.  Which many will abuse, but that seems to be the price to pay...  And those who do abuse of it will have to face the consequences, whatever those may be.  

The more importance we give to this kind of thing, the more publicity it gets, the more the artist gets known.  I kind of think even this lil' ol' thread is, in the end, nothing more than free (if unintentional) publicity for this gross and tacky shock collection.  So in a way, it's quite counter-productive.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Since some people have decided to adopt the role of art critic, aesthetic expert, and social commentator  and historian all in one with remarks like "One of the greatest examples of the Jesuits use of soft porn to win back the heretics", may I suggest that if they find sexual stimulation in the Montoya exhibit catalogue, or the other linked images, they might also be aroused by a jar of peanut butter or a toothbrush.



You are however viewing such images from the perspective of the modern society, where everyone has been constantly exposed to skilfully crafted sexually charged images conforming to the modern standards of beauty and sexual attractiveness. The figures painted by Caravaggio et al. can indeed hardly be competitive in such an environment. However, for the the 16th century folks, you can bet that the religious art of the time was highly sensual. If you compare it with the actual porn of those bygone ages, you won't find that much difference.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> If you compare it with the actual porn of those bygone ages, you won't find that much difference.



Hi Athaulf,

You may be right.  To put it in street corner terms, "put up or shut up".  I await your
links to "the actual porn" of Caravaggio's time.  If there are no surviving porno images
from that far back, you are welcome to show us what passed for porn in Goya's era.

There is another small matter.  Even if we accept the notion that religious art of past centuries
had some erotic effect on the viewer, that is far from proof that those who looked at religious art
had (1)drifted from the religious flock, or (2)were apt to be drawn back to a more spiritual or religious life by the prospect of seeing such works in a place of worship.  

I repeat that the posting of links to religious painting of bygone days was a cheap attempt, and
not a persuasive one, at sensationalism.

Now that the Partido Popular has dredged up state funding of a catalog, years after it was published, for its own political motives, it would be interesting to see some contemporary news
reports from the actual time of the exhibit.    Tacky may be timeless.


----------



## Outsider

I found the pictures daring and amusing, though not particularly arousing. I'm funny that way.


----------



## übermönch

As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone would find these pictures arousing, for it certainly isn't the aim, it is *not *porn. Having seen them I can tell that it was a nice idea to fund it, funding promising artists in general is a nice thing to do. 



			
				Heidita said:
			
		

> These are *really* disgusting.


Well, Heidita, what exactly does seem disgusting to you? They're rather quite aestethic. Well, all aside from the one with the poop.  Is it the human body that disgusts you?


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Hi Athaulf,
> 
> You may be right.  To put it in street corner terms, "put up or shut up".  I await your
> links to "the actual porn" of Caravaggio's time.  If there are no surviving porno images
> from that far back, you are welcome to show us what passed for porn in Goya's era.



For example, during the Renaissance, the nude portraits of Venus were commonly painted with the intention of looking erotically arousing to the viewers. Naming the paintings of naked women "Venuses" was a way of making them more respectable, even in cases where I don't see much essential difference between such works of art and the modern high-end soft porn. Yet,  for obvious reasons, few if any modern men would find themselves sexually aroused by looking at those paintings. Therefore, it seems to me that the religious-themed paintings of the same period that show only somewhat less scantily clad characters must have also had similar potential to be perceived as sexually arousing. Consider that for the common people of the period, the very sight of a relatively realistic-looking work of art was something amazing and unusual; it's easy to forget this in our day and age where we're bombarded by all kinds of photo-realistic images 24/7. 



> There is another small matter.  Even if we accept the notion that religious art of past centuries
> had some erotic effect on the viewer, that is far from proof that those who looked at religious art
> had (1)drifted from the religious flock, or (2)were apt to be drawn back to a more spiritual or religious life by the prospect of seeing such works in a place of worship.
> 
> I repeat that the posting of links to religious painting of bygone days was a cheap attempt, and
> not a persuasive one, at sensationalism.


Regardless of the motives of that posting, I think that it does demonstrate some important points that many people nowadays fail to understand. People often believe that historically, through the past few centuries, the world has been constantly becoming more liberal and open-minded in virtually all matters, including sex and religion (and any combination thereof), and that something creating a scandal today would have necessarily been perceived as immensely more scandalous in the past. However, my impression is that this hasn't really been so; it's more accurate to describe the world as going back and forth between periods of extreme permissiveness and uptightness. The idea of creating Christian religious iconography in which characters are depicted in an erotically charged way seems grossly blasphemous nowadays, but I see no reason why it must have been so 500 years ago.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for an informative reply.  I do not classify erotic art as pornographic.  Do you?

To be clear--an image of a fully clothed person may be erotic, while it is in no way pornographic.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Thanks for an informative reply.  I do not classify erotic art as pornographic.  Do you?



I think that "pornographic" is one of those words that are being thrown as insults too much to be useful for rational debate.  The limit between "erotic art" and "pornography" has always been extremely blurred, and has been shifting back and forth throughout history as the social standards have changed, not to mention the differences in individual opinions. As for my personal opinion, I can't really give a satisfactory answer without going into the perennial question of what constitutes "true art," but still, I would say that interesting artistic potentials exist even in things that would be considered on the "pornographic" side by modern standards.

But regardless, I don't think that the degree of explicitness of any images is particularly relevant in the context of this discussion. What gives the whole issue an aura of horrid blasphemy is the very idea that the images of Christian saints and Christ are given a sexual dimension of some sort, regardless of how much flesh is explicitly shown in the process. And I'm not sure that this idea was considered equally shocking and unthinkable in the past centuries.


----------



## vachecow

cuchuflete said:


> I do not classify erotic art as pornographic.  Do you?
> 
> To be clear--an image of a fully clothed person may be erotic, while it is in no way pornographic.


Thats a good point, I never really thought about that before.
I think that one certain thing can be seen as art by some and as pornographic by others, and all can be right.  It depends on how/if the appreciate it, and what they do with it/take from it.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> People often believe that historically, through the past few centuries, the world has been constantly becoming more liberal and open-minded in virtually all matters, including sex and religion (and any combination thereof), and that something creating a scandal today would have necessarily been perceived as immensely more scandalous in the past. However, my impression is that this hasn't really been so; it's more accurate to describe the world as going back and forth between periods of extreme permissiveness and uptightness.



That's right. I think in ancient times they were miles ahead of us now in terms of sexual dishinibition, but. I found it a bit odd when I was visiting some ancient roman settlement round here and spotted a male genitalia carved right on to the wall in the main entrance of the city. A thing like that would be quite unthinkable nowadays. It'd be like having a big sculpture of a penis in the hall of an international airport. Many people would just run away screaming  

It was the Christianity that introduced all these ill-conceived, anti-human, guilt-driven mentality and inhibitions. We are now just slowly recovering from this incredibly big mistake.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> That's right. I think in ancient times they were miles ahead of us now in terms of sexual dishinibition, but. I found it a bit odd when I was visiting some ancient roman settlement round here and spotted a male genitalia carved right on to the wall in the main entrance of the city. A thing like that would be quite unthinkable nowadays. It'd be like having a big sculpture of a penis in the hall of an international airport. Many people would just run away screaming
> 
> It was the Christianity that introduced all these ill-conceived, anti-human, guilt-driven mentality and inhibitions. We are now just slowly recovering from this incredibly big mistake.



Actually, I didn't have in mind the well-known contrast between Christianity and the Classical Antiquity. What I had in mind are different periods in the history of Europe and the New World from the Middle Ages to the modern times, long after the Christianization of Europe. People often imagine these centuries as a more or less linear progression from stringent religion-based repression towards modern liberalism and permissiveness in the areas of religion, thought, sexuality, all sorts of social customs, etc. But to me it seems like the level of general permissiveness in each of these areas has been going up and down rather than in a single direction throughout the history of Christendom. 

To take an extreme example, the Renaissance period was certainly vastly more sexually permissive than, say, the 19th century. As for the modern times, I get the impression that the modern civilization had entered a period of the greatest general permissiveness in the period roughly from the 1960s to the 1980s and has started to slowly return in the other direction in the last 15-20 years or so. Of course, it's still much too early to tell whether my impression is correct, but even during my lifetime, I haven't been seeing a constant progression in either direction.


----------



## faranji

Athaulf said:


> I would say that interesting artistic potentials exist even in things that would be considered on the "pornographic" side by modern standards.


 
Of course. This can be seen as 'erotic art'. But to call this or this or this simply erotic would, in my book, be an understatement.


----------



## heidita

faranji said:


> Of course. This can be seen as 'erotic art'. But to call this or this or this simply erotic would, in my book, be an understatement.


 
Yes sire, a most definite understatement! 

I wonder if the people in those days were scandalized.


----------



## jaziz

heidita said:


> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]In Spain, a _pornographic bible_ was published on the web and in books with images of the Virgin Mary, Jesus etc in Pornographic attitudes. Do you think this is freedom of speech? I am surprised this hasn't had any more relevance as the caricatures of Mahoma did. There were comments all over Spain, the president intervened and even the Pope. Why not in this case? Is the catholic church less important, more tolerant or....??
> [/FONT][/FONT]



Heidita,

I think this is freedom of speech, yes.
& I sincerely believe the publication of the Danish or any other western caricatures of Mahomet/Mohamed/Mahoma under the name of that right was & is actually nothing less than a perversion of the right to the freedom of speech.

I think the right to the freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It is an historical one, that has come to light over the years & within a certain context.

Its meaning was not the right of the king or the powers that be to speak freely about, hence also insult, their subordinates, a means to keep them subordinate -
It is a right that has been exacted from the powers that be as a necessary means to emancipation from those powers.
A right to question (the sanctity of) the absoluteness of the power of the king or the church. 
And that questioning could & can take a variety of forms, all the way on the continuum from intellectual debate via ridicule & caricature to outright  debasement (which does not imply that all means are equally tastefull .

What's also important is that we, westerners, have exacted this right from our auhorities ourselves. It has not been imposed upon us, it has not been introduced by any foreign body into our european/western political thought.
We, our ancestors, have developed this right ourselves. By practicing it, developing it as a concept, & fighting for it against the oppression of whatever form of Ancien Régime that was in place at the time and that was not willingly making place for the notions of equality, freedom, brotherhood & whatnot.

As such, & in that light, the Danish caricatures were a perversion of that right - their aim was not 'the sanctity of the powers that be', 
it was an attack by the 'powers that be' on a minority that is disturbing in or by its otherness ( - and regarding muslims in Europe, we westerners, whether we be christian or atheist or anything in between, are all part of those 'powers that be'). 

(Those caricatures were published in a politically conservative journal supportive of the Danish government.)

As for the pictures of Montoya, personally, I like them. I see them as a contemporary translation of - indeed - a perversion of chatholic iconography & sanctity that is part of our cultural heritage since the days of Diderot, De Sade & fellow travellers.

Yet, it is an intra-cultural & still necessary critique of whatever is sacred to ourselves or to our culture. It is necessary in our culture to be able to make & diffuse this kind of material in order to be able to see that nothing is sacrosanct. Maybe a bit far-off, but if we weren't able to deal with this kind of material, we would not be able to accept that childabuse by sacrosanct priests, schoolteachers, judges was even possible. We would be able to see & accept it (in order to be able to condemn it of course) from villains, not from anybody pertaining to the Church.

Of course, I can also understand it is offending to anyone pertaining to that Church. I confess I don't know how to allow for both views to exist peacefully next to or to cooperate with one another.

& a bit by the side,
I think the Saint Sebastian mentioned earlier in artyzm.com/e_obraz.php?id=2422
is a good example I think of how a humanisation & eroticisation has been taking place well within the borders of our Catholic tradition long before it has been taken further to be developed into a means of criticism of that tradition - it is just part of the humanisation of the Sacred that has been taking place from an even earlier age, that has developed into humanism tout court, thence into the Enlightenment, the French Revolution & the institutionalisation of our new commandments as the (relative) freedom of speech we started off with.

- how to end this flight I seem to have taken?
Best regards?
Jazz


----------



## heidita

Interesting view, Jazz. Welcome to the forum!


----------



## maxiogee

jaziz said:


> Heidita,
> 
> I think this is freedom of speech, yes.
> & I sincerely believe the publication of the Danish or any other western caricatures of Mahomet/Mohamed/Mahoma under the name of that right was & is actually nothing less than a perversion of the right to the freedom of speech.



Welcome Jazz.

Might I suggest that you might be wrong in saying 
A right to question (the sanctity of) the absoluteness of the power of the king or the church. ​and suggest that it might be better expressed as  - A right to question (the sanctity of) the absoluteness of the power of *a* king or *a* church - since one could in the past speak  freely under this right on churches other than one's own, and of rulers other than one's own - whether foreign monarchs or deceased native ones. From that viewpoint the Danish cartoons are valid exercises in freedom of speech.
Whether they were justifiable exercises of that right is another matter.


----------



## Fernando

In the images we are discussing at, the sex is not suggested, it is shown. These are not erotic images (which would be wrong associated with religion or ideology figures) as Dánaes or Venuses. They are just pornography.


----------



## mirx

Fernando said:


> In the images we are discussing at, the sex is not suggested, it is shown. These are not erotic images (which would be wrong associated with religion or ideology figures) as Dánaes or Venuses. They are just pornography.



The cheapest pornography indeed.

What a way to disrespect others!!! I am disgusted, and Heidita I am with you, so with you Fernando.

And is not that I get scandalized, I didn't even see the pictures, the thought of it just makes me sick, poeple should be more thoughtful about what they say or do, in this particular case it is obvious that the aim was not the images or to express the so callled "freedom of speech", but to have a strong evil impact in a country's beliefs. It's not the fact that is "'the church" they attemped against, but the way they did it and who did it. We all can and must express our disatisfaction against something or someone, but there are always ways unoffensive ways in which we can do so.

Pornography per se is not (publicly) approved of by most societies, and is regarded as sinful and/or dirty. But when this same pornography involves and attempts against someone's most sacred beliefs, that is absolutely inadmissable. It's a punch and spit on the face of socites. Simply, a complete lack of consideration and respect for other's ideologies.


----------



## elmohdez

Kajjo said:


> I would recommend to simply ignore such things. I believe this is part of the liberty of press, art and science -- maybe a bad part, but none the less part of the freedom we all revere. The more taboos and limits we create, the easier we are restricted in sitatutions we don't want to be restricted. I believe that religion should not have any special rights in a secular, modern state.
> 
> No one has to watch those pictures. Ignore them, if you do not like them.
> 
> Kajjo


 
I'm 100% agree


----------



## cuchuflete

BBC report this morning:

*A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ. *  The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross....

Mr Cavallaro, the Canadian-born artist, is known for using food ingredients in his art, on one occasion painting a hotel room in mozzarella cheese. He used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth.


The article makes no mention of pornography, eroticism, or freedom of speech.  Those outraged seemed troubled by the use of
chocolate.


----------



## maxiogee

> A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ.The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross....


Why would anyone want to
a) 'create' such an item
b) go and look at it

Befuddledom strikes again!


----------



## übermönch

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The article makes no mention of pornography, eroticism, or freedom of speech.


Well, Jesus can also be seen in all his splendour at the very gates of Segrada Familia in Barcelona, also without anyone complaining about the horrid pornographic content. 



maxiogee said:


> Why would anyone want to
> a) 'create' such an item
> b) go and look at it
> 
> Befuddledom strikes again!


Hence a third question:
For what marvellous reason were all those cathedrals built? Why would anyone want to look at an utterly boring typical angel, Jesus or Maria?


----------



## maxiogee

ubermonch said:
			
		

> Hence a third question:
> For what marvellous reason were all those cathedrals built? Why would anyone want to look at an utterly boring typical angel, Jesus or Maria?


Because in the days when they were being built they were educational for the illiterate churchgoer, and they were probably all the art they ever encountered in their lives.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is a link
to another opinion, which raises an interesting question:
When Romans crucified someone, was the person typically 
naked or clothed?  In other words, is this sculpture historically accurate?



Photo- No loincloth


----------



## Kajjo

Thanks for the photo, Cuchuflete. It is nice to see what we talk about. I do not observe anything obscene or scandalising in that exhibit. Using chocolate as play with "sweet lord" is nothing offending, I suppose. The sculptor was at least competent -- what is more than can be said about many other pieces of so-called art nowadays.

It is plausible that crucifixions did take place without loin cloths. Who knows?

Kajjo


----------



## Mate

cuchuflete said:


> BBC report this morning:
> 
> *A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ...*
> Mr Cavallaro, the Canadian-born artist, is known for using food ingredients in his art, on one occasion painting a hotel room in mozzarella cheese. He used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth.
> 
> The article makes no mention of pornography, eroticism, or freedom of speech. Those outraged seemed troubled by the use of
> chocolate.


Si yo fuera el Sr Cavallaro, rompería la obra en pedazos y apaciguaría los ánimos de los ofendidos -si eso es posible- donando todo el chocolate a su obra de caridad preferida. 

*If I were Mr Cavallaro, I would break the work of art into small pieces and donate all the chocolate to the charity of choice of the offended in order to calm them down, if at all possible.*


----------



## übermönch

maxiogee said:


> Because in the days when they were being built they were educational for the illiterate churchgoer, and they were probably all the art they ever encountered in their lives.


Yet, churches are not completely empty, and if people still choose see the different flavours of Jesus in different churches and even to listen to tales about him, why wouldn't they want to look at a nude chocolate one?


----------



## Kajjo

Mateamargo said:


> If I were Mr Cavallaro, I would break the work of art into small pieces and donate all the chocolate to the charity of choice of the offended in order to calm them down, if at all possible.


I am not sure that eating Jesus would be the choice of the offended.  I guess such art has a "best before" date anyway.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> Here is a link
> to another opinion, which raises an interesting question:
> When Romans crucified someone, was the person typically
> naked or clothed?  In other words, is this sculpture historically accurate?
> 
> 
> 
> Photo- No loincloth



I have not checked, but I think the Gospel only says that His tunic was removed and distributed among the soldiers. So, Jesus would be naked or almost naked (underwear was not very common). 

Since crucifixition was a shameful kind of execution I assume the people in the cross would be naked (as an additional insult to them).

For puritan reasons the "almost" has been preferred in Christ images.

Though I certainly prefer the "classical" image, this sculpture is not disgusting to me. It is bad-tasted and inellegant but it does not have any erotic or pornographic message.


----------



## Hebe-asteriod

Etcetera said:


> Heidita, I'm shocked. I have no words for it.
> Freedom of speech is a good thing, but... everything has its borders!


 

I agree with Etcetera,   the right to speech freedom ends when the right of  people to be respected begins.  This is the thing about rights, it is always subject to compliance with duties (respect for the others).


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> The article makes no mention of pornography, eroticism, or freedom of speech. Those outraged seemed troubled by the use of chocolate.


What about the appalling disrespect displayed toward George Harrison?

.,,


----------



## Mate

. said:


> What about the appalling disrespect displayed toward George Harrison?
> 
> .,,


-What about it?  

And what does George have to do with this thread?


----------



## .   1

Mateamargo said:


> And what does George have do with this thread?


He is the whole reason that the 'art' makes any sense at all.
Where do you think that the title comes from?
What is George Harrison's most famous song?
Which group leader said that they were more famous than some bloke hanging on a cross?
How many more direct derivations and references are necessary before The Beatles are paid a commission for the installation?

.,,


----------



## heidita

. said:


> He is the whole reason that the 'art' makes any sense at all.
> Where do you think that the title comes from?
> What is George Harrison's most famous song?
> Which group leader said that they were more famous than some bloke hanging on a cross?
> How many more direct derivations and references are necessary before The Beatles are paid a commission for the installation?
> 
> .,,


 
??¿¿ I am lost! Me he perdido!


----------



## Fernando

The only connection with reality I can think of is the comment of one of the Beatles (George Harrison????) about that "we are more famous than Jesuchrist".

Anyhow, I fail to relate that comment with the thread.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> ??¿¿ I am lost! Me he perdido!


I was referring directly to Cuchuflete's contribution of 'religious porn' entitled "My Sweet Lord".
My Sweet Lord is George Harrison's most infamous song. It is a hauntingly glorious tune overlayed with heart pausing lyrics but it was revealed that George Harrison had plagiarised the music so there is already an 'art eating art' reference.
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm
George Harrison was a member of The Beatles.
The most infamous quote made by a Beatle is arguably that made by John Lennon who was The Christ figure of the band at the time. A mantle that later passed to George Harrison. 
This gives us a couple of 'artistic religion artisticly eating religion' references.
http://music.aol.com/feature/famous-quote-john-lennon
This event effectively ended The Beatles public performances. So there is a reference to Religion eating artistic religion.

We now have edible religious art with heavy Beatles references about a dead religious icon linked inextricably with a dead artistic icon.

There would be no point in creating an installation entitled 'My Sweet Lord' had the song 'My Sweet Lord' not been made famous by George Harrison and the crucifixion of The Beatles by Religion for words spoken that were totally misinterpreted by The Religious lends a completion to the Chocolate Christ. 
Who would go to see the silly thing if it was just Cocoa Hesus or The Cadbury Cross or Death By Chocolate?
We wouldn't be discussing it here.
Art requires ...?

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Here is a link
> to another opinion, which raises an interesting question:
> When Romans crucified someone, was the person typically naked or clothed? In other words, is this sculpture historically accurate?


 
I'm sure that Romans didn't mind public nudity in this context. Why would the anyway? For fear of shocking and offending the audience that came to see a live crucifixion? 

While googling on the topic, I came across this book with a very promising title (Steinberg, Leo: *The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion*. ISBN: 978-0-226-77187-8 (ISBN-10: 0-226-77187-3) Fall 1996); this discussion has definitely motivated me to put it on my reading list. I would recommend everyone to read at least its review and summary. I was really surprised to see that even Walmart is carrying it, though.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> The only connection with reality I can think of is


On this thread, this is too good.
You have my appreciation with gusto.
You have made my day.

.,,


----------



## heidita

. said:


> I was referring directly to Cuchuflete's contribution of 'religious porn' entitled "My Sweet Lord"....
> My Sweet Lord is George Harrison's most infamous song. It is a hauntingly Who would go to see the silly thing if it was just Cocoa Jesus or The Cadbury Cross or Death By Chocolate?
> We wouldn't be discussing it here.
> Art requires ...?
> 
> .,,


 

Of course, my sweet Lord!! I don't think it is infamous at all, I am know the song very well. Now that you mentioned it , actually it is humming in my ears.

Really, it is a perfectly reasonable connection to the chocolate Christ. It never even occurred to me. 

In any case, I can't see anything repulsive in a chocolate Christ, wooden Christ, peppermint Christ. I might not think it of good taste, but then, that's very personal. 

In the pictures I included though, we have explicit porn postures and explicit pornography carried out by Saints.

Somebody asked if I found a naked body repulsive. I find a naked body performing explicit sex connected with a Saint and Jesus repulsive, yes.


----------



## cuchuflete

heidita said:


> I find a naked body performing explicit sex connected with a Saint and Jesus repulsive, yes.



Repulsive enough to want to discuss it, obviously.

Why not just avoid what you find repulsive?

I never, ever, go to dinner with Donald Rumsfeld.


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> Why not just avoid what you find repulsive?
> 
> I never, ever, go to dinner with Donald Rumsfeld.


_Merde_, I am trying to eat my breakfast.
Now I feeling like having a conversation with a stainless steel wall.

.,,
Ruth, Ruth, where are you, watchunder.

It's funny how the scandalised just can't tear their eyes away.
I was called to a house by a LOL who was bitching about the neighbours cavorting nekkid in their back yard.  It is an offence to peep and pry into private property.
This old biddy showed me how if she stood up on the edge of teh bath and peered out the window over the fence and past the shrub she could sometimse see them walk to and from their outdoor spa.
She was outraged and I was confused.  She was risking breaking a hip to cop a perve.  I have no idea how long she would have had to wait perched there like a boney old vulture gripping her holey book in one hand and mother's little helper in the other.
There are none so strange as folk.


----------



## ernest_

Fernando said:


> I have not checked, but I think the Gospel only says that His tunic was removed and distributed among the soldiers. So, Jesus would be naked or almost naked (underwear was not very common).
> 
> Since crucifixition was a shameful kind of execution I assume the people in the cross would be naked (as an additional insult to them).



The books of the Bible are not precisely known for their historical accuracy. The truth is that we know little about crucifixion apart from vague references here and there; so far only one archaelogical evidence of crucifixion has been found, as recently as 1968.

And we know even less about that Christus guy. The oldest Christian documents that we have found date from 300 years after Christus' death.  There is no record of him from the time when he (allegedly) was alive; no contemporary writer ever mentioned the guy, the only references to him are from documents posterior to his death.

So, basically we know nothing about Christus' crucifixion; we cannot even tell for sure whether Mr. Christus ever existed, to begin with.


----------



## Outsider

Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled


----------



## .   1

The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails. Semler said the calls included *death threats *over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display. (Watch Cavallaro touch up the sculpture, explain its purpose 

)
"In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of *a fear for their own safety*," Semler said.


Outsider said:


> Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled


By bigotted boneheads who had not even seen the exhibit yet felt empowered to threaten to commit *murder* because they are such damned straight Christians.  To be willing to even say such a thing is an indication of mental derangement way beyond having an imaginery friend named Roger.
Religious fundamentalism. Pah!!

.,,
Do god botherers bother only the bretherin or do god botherers bother God?


----------



## SaritaSarang

heidita said:


> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]
> In Spain, a _pornographic bible_ was published on the web and in books with images of the Virgin Mary, Jesus etc in Pornographic attitudes. Do you think this is freedom of speech? I am surprised this hasn't had any more relevance as the caricatures of Mahoma did. There were comments all over Spain, the president intervened and even the Pope. Why not in this case? Is the catholic church less important, more tolerant or....??
> [/FONT][/FONT]


*
That is just disgusting.*


----------



## .   1

SaritaSarang said:


> *That is just disgusting.*


Why?

.,,


----------



## SaritaSarang

. said:


> Why?
> 
> .,,



Why do I find pictures of religious figures doing pornographic things disgusting?  Because it is the nature of how I am, I'm sure there are things that disgust you, because that's how you are, well it's the same for me. I do not owe anybody a reason for why I think it's gross, but I'll give it anyways. 
*I find PORN disgusting in general, REGARDLESS of who's in it*, ( whether it's Jesus Christ, Ron Jeremy, the Easter Bunny,  whoever).


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> *A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ. *The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross....


Who says that the depiction is of Jesus Christ?
I have never before seen Jesus with a 'power pony tail'.
Where are the nail marks? 
Where are the stigmata?
Where is the spear wound to the ribs?
Where is the Crown Of Thorns?
Where is the mark of the flagellation?
Where is the Cross?
The arms are in the wrong position for a crucifixion. Death from crucifixion came from slow suffocation as the body slumped down and the diaphram could no longer inhale air. Those arms are straight out to the side. That body needs to slump down at least two more feet to get even close to the suffocation position.
The hands are turned palm downward.
This is not the scene of a crucifixion.
This looks more like a scene from a Slasher Movie like 'Freddy Krueger Is The Easter Bunny'.

I see utterly no religious iconography being displayed at all. The only noise that I hear is the bleat of wounded Christians moaning about the lack of religious accuracy to an exhibit that thay have not seen and could not understand.
Christians do not own the phrase, My Sweet Lord.
George Harrison made the phrase popular and his song also contains the following;
hare krishna
krishna krishna
hare hare
gurur brahma
gurur vishnu
gurur devo
maheshwara
gurur sakshaat
parabrahma
tasmayi shree
guruve namah
hare rama
I would be fascinated to hear how these words are a reference to the immortal who faked his own death and then based and entire religion on this semantic trickery.
My Sweet Lord belongs to the collective consciousness not some splinter group of believers.



cuchuflete said:


> Repulsive enough to want to discuss it, obviously.
> 
> Why not just avoid what you find repulsive?
> 
> I never, ever, go to dinner with Donald Rumsfeld.


It's funny about how the urgers and naysayers always seem to find these things. I never even knew about this.
I am willing to bet that there are a number of outraged christians sucking their gums in mounting rage who would not be so enraged were it not for the decision to bring this subject up in the first place.

That bible story is years old.
It was reported in one newspaper because some weirdo politician wants to garner some pathetic little votes.
I couldn't have known about it because I don't speak that language.
Lots of people here are now aware of that pornographic bible.
I guess that Satan moves in mysterious ways.

.,,


----------



## heidita

Outsider said:


> Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled


 
I am surprised though at this outcome. I didn't see anything _pornographic_ in the chocolate Christ. Only because he was naked? That seems strange. Naked Christs have always been exhibited.

I said this "bible" was offensive because it showed explicit sex scenes among Saints. I don't think you have to be a believer or a catholic yourself to find this _wrong_. 

On the other hand, you may find this religious business all humbug and find the outrage silly and nonsensical. I can go with that, but  why not see in in the light others see it? I might state here, that I am not a catholic myself. Still, I do not agree with this, and less paying for it!


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> I am surprised though at this outcome. I didn't see anything _pornographic_ in the chocolate Christ. Only because he was naked? That seems strange. Naked Christs have always been exhibited.


Ergo, it is a matter of taste! Even among Christians.
Some Christians were so morally outraged that they considered that they had the God Given Right to rain on the parade of a mob of artists to the point of issuing *Death Threats *in the name Jesus Christ The Son Of God. These Morally Righteous Christians committed a serious criminal offence punishable by many years in prison. If any of them did it three times they faced life in jail. If three or more of them conspired to issue these monsterous threats they would all face life inprisonment for conspiracy to commit a serious crime.
All of this outrage over an overblown Easter Bunny.
When I first saw it, on this thread, I scrolled down to find the naked chocolate Jesus. I thought that I had been linked to an entire Chocolate Madam Trousseau's and that I was looking at Freddy Krueger.

I realised my error and then saw a mottled figure of black and brown and white and I thought, 'Cool!' an all inclusive Jesus. I seldom see a non white Jesus and an all brown Jesus or all black Jesus have never seemed any easier to look at than the traditional lily livered white version but this new Multicultural Jesus seemed interesting.
I wonder if the Moral Morons would have bleated so loud if the figure had been 'white' 'chocolate'. That would seem more appropriate to their belief system because the white chocolate is no more white than it is chocolate. It is a beige animal fat confection with no positive food value the consumption of which will only clog your arteries and leave you feeling bloated and logey.



heidita said:


> I said this "bible" was offensive because it showed explicit sex scenes among Saints. I don't think you have to be a believer or a catholic yourself to find this _wrong_.


This is a very cultural thing. Someone mentioned that Ron Jeremy is so famous (wealthy from people buying his product) that his name is a household word even among the Morally Righteous.
This means that the Moral Right are living in a community where enough of their peers and Governers (Arnie Swartzenegger looks cute when he flexes his member for the camera in the old porn flicks he made) expend billions annually watching every conceivable of the two backed beast or polybacked beasts or the poly backed multi species beasts exercising far more than their freedom of religious expression.
My understanding of a Capitalist Society is that greater praise can no man give than that he lay down his money for his porn.
My suspicion is that many believers and even catholics lay down more than their money in their adherence to this principle.

I didn't paw through the bible in prurient or vouyeristic detail but I saw nothing that was actually pornographic. 
I do not find the image of a woman expressing milk in a huge arc into the mouth of a wanker to be in the slightest bit erotic or tittilating. It is just strange and impossible. The physics are all wrong. The parabolic trajectory of the milk is completely impossible. Human milk has a lower cohesion factor than water and even water would not maintain a cohesive stream over such a long distance.
Him masturbating while drinking milk makes no sense.
A pile of shit above a grail is mystefying but certainly not hard on material.
I can't remember any of the rest but I have a hard time believing that copies of this bible will be used in dark little rooms to stimulate the corporal senses. 
See, this is the thing. Only a religious person could see these images as inherently offensive.
The rest of us are just confused because the imagery makes no cohesive sense. We are not primed by the background settings and we are certainly not turned on by the weird imagination of the artist.
I do not think that there is anything sexual about any of the images that I saw. My impression was that the artist was trying to be offensive but not in a sexual way.
The depictions I saw were all a manipulation of the positions of power.
Pornography is to this as rape is to lovemaking. Nothing about sex and everything about power.



heidita said:


> On the other hand, you may find this religious business all humbug and find the outrage silly and nonsensical. I can go with that, but why not see in in the light others see it? I might state here, that I am not a catholic myself. Still, I do not agree with this, and less paying for it!


I can't tell you how other people feel about this.  I don't know and I don't care.  I am fascinated as to why it is so deeply under your skin.

If people want to bleat about this as being religiously offensive I can go along with that but trying to label it as being offensive because it is pornographic is just being deceptive and hiding the real reason for the initial rant and the faux hurt feelings.

People who want to achieve the moral high ground should state their intentions openly and morally honestly.
A lie of omission still makes Baby Jesus cry.

.,,


----------



## asm

La libertad de expresiOn debe ser como una moneda, es decir, debe tener dos caras. De un lado lo que queremos decir y del otro un contrapeso de responsabilidad con el que se sostanga lo que se quiere decir.
Estas imagenes carecen de responsabilidad, por mas anticatOlico que uno sea no se tiene el derecho de ofender de esta forma. 



heidita said:


> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvética,sans-serif]http://www.lavanguardia.es/gen/2007...ucristo-ere-juan-carlos-rodriguez-ibarra.html
> 
> Me llama la atención que dichas imágenes no hayan tenido más relevancia. Cuando se hicieron una pocas caricaturas de la imagen de Mahoma, hubo todo tipo de intervenciones del presidente del gobierno, del Papa....
> 
> Se ha leído esto:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo me pregunto esto también.
> 
> In Spain, a _pornographic bible_ was published on the web and in books with images of the Virgin Mary, Jesus etc in Pornographic attitudes. Do you think this is freedom of speech? I am surprised this hasn't had any more relevance as the caricatures of Mahoma did. There were comments all over Spain, the president intervened and even the Pope. Why not in this case? Is the catholic church less important, more tolerant or....??
> [/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## heidita

. said:


> People who want to achieve the moral high ground should state their intentions openly and morally honestly.
> A lie of omission still makes Baby Jesus cry.
> 
> .,,


 
What do you mean by that? 

Anyway, the chocolate Jesus maker had death threats and the author of the _bible_ had death threats. That's what they _say_. None of the threats have been published. I don't know about the chocolate case, but not here in Spain anyway. 

Anyway, who hasn't had a death threat?


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> What do you mean by that?


Which bits confuse you?



heidita said:


> Anyway, the chocolate Jesus maker had death threats and the author of the _bible_ had death threats. That's what they _say_. None of the threats have been published. I don't know about the chocolate case, but not here in Spain anyway.


The expensive chocolate exhibit closed down very early.  It could not possibly have closed down due to boredom or lack of interest.
They closed down and lost a great deal of money and said that this was because of death threats.  I find the explanation consistent with the facts.



heidita said:


> Anyway, who hasn't had a death threat?


Wow!  This must be a personality thing.
Is it a Spanish thing issue death theats?
Is this something from your German upbringing?
Death threats are quite rare in Australia and would be a matter of great concern rather than a nod and a wink?!? 

.,,


----------



## heidita

. said:


> Wow! This must be a personality thing.
> Is it a Spanish thing issue death threats?
> Is this something from your German upbringing?
> Death threats are quite rare in Australia and would be a matter of great concern rather than a nod and a wink?!?
> 
> .,,


 
You haven't had death threats????  

My husband-jewel threatens to kill me almost every day.  

Yes, indeed, must be _Spanish thing_! 

As a matter of fact, death threats *are* actually quite common here. One doesn't take them seriously, just a matter of talk. That's why people don't take the death threats on the bible writer seriously. (Of course, we are not talking about _really_ serious issues! Don't misunderstand me.)

It is not at all common to utter death threats in Germany. But then, Spanish people take life much easier, I have learnt from them a lot! (Please, do come and visit!! )


----------



## ernest_

Last year a theatre show was cancelled in Madrid after a campaign of harassment and threats carried out by a bunch of crazy religious fundamentalists who found the show to be "blasphemous". This time they didn't limit themselves to threatening, but they also actually attacked the theatre and the people who'd gone to see the show and they even set up a bomb that was luckily defused before it could blow up. This in a city that had been tragically hit by the Islamic terrorists not long before. But you ken what they say: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Full article here (in English):
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/spai-m28.shtml


----------



## Kajjo

ernest_ said:


> Last year a theatre show was cancelled in Madrid [...]
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/mar2006/spai-m28.shtml


This guy seems to be a reasonable person. "Reverse Evangelism" is a very nice word to describe turning towards reason and insight.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> I wonder if the Moral Morons would have bleated so loud if the figure had been 'white' 'chocolate'. That would seem more appropriate to their belief system because the white chocolate is no more white than it is chocolate. It is a beige animal fat confection with no positive food value the consumption of which will only clog your arteries and leave you feeling bloated and logey.


It might be off-topic, but I feel an intense desire to defend white chocolate. White Chocolate contains no cacao powder, but it does contain quite a lot of genuine cacao butter (up to 30%) and most white chocolates do not contain significantly more milk products than brown milk chocolate (between 22-26% in both products).

Kajjo


----------



## ampurdan

I feel that this thread adopted from the very beginning a highly confrontational approach. 

Yes, all discussions about "freedom of expression" are susceptible of harsh confrontation, but I feel that the facts were presented in a way to seek a condemn of many of our members and angry comments from both opponents of offence and defenders of freedom of expression, but this one also was meant as an attack to another culture: "look what THEY do, should WE tolerate this?".

Now, I see that it has become an excuse for personal atacks and insulting other people's countries and cultures.

German upbringing and Spanish Inquisition has too little if anything to do with the matter that is being treated here, in my humble opinion. All those things are not a bit rational.

I hope that this thread does not become a repertoir of attacks and a "cahier des doléances" of some people against the other.


----------



## heidita

ampurdan said:


> Now, I see that it has become an excuse for personal atacks and insulting other people's countries and cultures.
> 
> German upbringing and Spanish Inquisition has too little if anything to do with the matter that is being treated here,.


 

Indeed.


----------



## ireney

Mod note: This thread is veering off-topic way too often lately. Please everyone, stick to the topic.


----------



## SaritaSarang

ampurdan said:


> I feel that this thread adopted from the very beginning a highly confrontational approach.
> 
> Yes, all discussions about "freedom of expression" are susceptible of harsh confrontation, but I feel that the facts were presented in a way to seek a condemn of many of our members and angry comments from both opponents of offence and defenders of freedom of expression, but this one also was meant as an attack to another culture: "look what THEY do, should WE tolerate this?".
> 
> Now, I see that it has become an excuse for personal atacks and insulting other people's countries and cultures.
> German upbringing and Spanish Inquisition has too little if anything to do with the matter that is being treated here, in my humble opinion. All those things are not a bit rational.
> 
> I hope that this thread does not become a repertoir of attacks and a "cahier des doléances" of some people against the other.



I completely agree, and it is sad that people enjoy insulting other people and have such an intolerance of any opinion that is not like their own.


----------



## cuchuflete

SaritaSarang said:


> *
> That is just disgusting.*





SaritaSarang said:


> I completely agree, and it is sad that people enjoy insulting other people and have such an intolerance of any opinion that is not like their own.



Was the comment in bold respectful of those who had earlier stated that they do not consider
these things pornographic or particularly offensive?  
Somehow I missed the tone of tolerance in the way the opinion was presented.

If someone had not told me that the photograph of the chocolate statue was supposed to
be a representation of a religious figure, I would have looked at it as a male nude (non-pornographic) chocolate figure.  I would have yawned, and turned my attention elsewhere,
without benefit of rage or disgust.  

Suppose someone had told you that it was a statue of Georges Pompidou, or George Bush?
Would you be disgusted by the statue because it has a penis?

About three billion males on this planet have one of those.  Is that disgusting?  

I can easily tolerate those who find artistic representations of religious figures distasteful.  I may even agree with them some of the time.  Is this cause for outrage and bold screaming? 

No.


----------



## SaritaSarang

My comment was my opinion, I in no way insulted anyone or their cultural upbringing, I simply stated my personal opinion on the pornographic bible. Other people have stated their opinions as well, that is after all what this thread is for.  I have no problem with other peoples opinion on this, I can accept other peoples opinions that differ from mine, I think you have every right to not find it disgusting.

My comment was my opinion on the pornographic Bible, and that only. I wrote nothing about the chocolate thing, I could really care less about some chocolate statue, I didn't say I found " nudity" disgusting, I find " PORN" disgusting.

I never said I was outraged or angry, I am not actually, It doesn't make me angry, I just find it to be gross.  It's that simple.


----------



## übermönch

Outsider said:


> Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled


That reminds me on a similar case in Russia. An exhibition of blasphemeous art at the Sakharov museum was ravaged by christian fanatics and the court had decided that they were right to do so being hurt in their relgious feelings. At the end it was the director of the museum was fined for blasphemy.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> Indeed.


With any due respects you are the thread starter.
You asked me if I had received death threats.
I responded.
What's the problem?
This is an open and honest examination of what makes us cohesive as a species.
It is not a snide attempt to drive a wedge between people and cultures is it?
We are all here in the pursuit of mutual understanding are we not?
My culture does not routinely issue death threats.
I most certainly do not ever threaten to kill my wife and she has never said that she wanted to kill me. I do not know anyone who routinely issues death threats who is not incarcerated in some manner so I sought a cultural reason for the matter from a person who states that she is a German person living in Spain and speaking English. A perfect opportunity to have her point clarified.
This thead is all about the issue of death threats and the severe impact that such threats can have on the human psyche.

Where did I cross the line?
Whose culture did I insult?

.,,


----------



## .   1

I heard from my wife, this is hearsay so I will be careful, and I have not been able to verify the news because this is basically second hand hear say so that makes it hear hear say say.

It would appear that the Moral Minority flooded the venue with hate and death threats gave the artist more publicity than he could have dreamed of and the exhibit is on the road and will be exhibited in further galleries with more free publicity and therefore wallets through the door than he will be able to poke a stick at.

How wonderful.
What is the opposite of shadenfreude? How do you say happy joy?

.,,


----------



## conquer

cuchuflete said:


> BBC report this morning:
> 
> *A New York gallery has angered a US Catholic group with its decision to exhibit a milk chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ. *The six-foot (1.8m) sculpture, entitled "My Sweet Lord", depicts Jesus Christ naked on the cross....
> 
> Mr Cavallaro, the Canadian-born artist, is known for using food ingredients in his art, on one occasion painting a hotel room in mozzarella cheese. He used 200 pounds (90 kg) of chocolate to make the sculpture which, unusually, depicts Jesus without a loincloth.
> 
> 
> The article makes no mention of pornography, eroticism, or freedom of speech. Those outraged seemed troubled by the use of
> chocolate.


 
Besides the sweet complaint, the Roman punishment in those years included to expose the criminal naked to society. By consequence, no pornography and neither erotiscism is found in this expression of art.


----------



## .   1

conquer said:


> Besides the sweet complaint, the Roman punishment in those years included to expose the criminal naked to society. By consequence, no pornography and neither erotiscism is found in this expression of art.


Exactly.  He is being humiliated.  He is not there for shallow tittilation.

Horror is in the eye of the beholder in this case.

.,,


----------



## iguauko

The pornographic religious art had a shock value for me that lasted about five minutes.  I guess the interesting side of it is the discussion that the art provokes.  I can´t think of any art that would make me react with the horror and repulsion that many people have expressed.  For this reason, I´m having a hard time emphasizing with the people who are disgusted.

The Iraq war, my president and my government make me disgusted.  The incredibly low wages that are paid in many parts of the world are disgusting for me, but this is something that when I wake up tomorrow I will have already forgotten.

This discussion makes me think of Karl Marx who said:
"All that is solid melts into air,* all that is holy is    profaned,* and men at last are forced to face with sober senses the    real conditions of their lives and their relations with their fellow men."


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Iguauko,
What do you think of alfalfa sprouts and metrification compared with pornographic religious art?


----------



## .   1

iguauko said:


> The pornographic religious art had a shock value for me that lasted about five minutes. I guess the interesting side of it is the discussion that the art provokes. I can´t think of any art that would make me react with the horror and repulsion that many people have expressed. For this reason, I´m having a hard time emphasizing with the people who are disgusted.


I will assume that you have emphasized your lack of empathy.




iguauko said:


> The Iraq war, my president and my government make me disgusted. The incredibly low wages that are paid in many parts of the world are disgusting for me, but this is something that when I wake up tomorrow I will have already forgotten.


Can you supply me with the link the the religious porn or pornographic artwork mocking religion to which you so lucidly refer.




iguauko said:


> This discussion makes me think of Karl Marx who said:





iguauko said:


> "All that is solid melts into air,* all that is holy is profaned, *





iguauko said:


> and men at last are forced to face with sober senses the real conditions of their lives and their relations with their fellow men."


All that is open is shut, all that is black is white, all that is wet is dry, all that is shallow is deep.

No wonder Marxism fell on it's arse.

.,,


----------

