Chocolate Jesus

Remove all ads!

CNN article and for those who don't want to click the link:

Time article

I'm trying to figure out which is "the worst assault on Christian senses" and "offensive": the fact that Jesus doesn't wear the historical loin cloth, or that it's a graven image.

 

they could alternatively make him of white chocolate and give him a loincloth, then i suppose its not as offending anymore? i mean you eat jesus flesh and drink his blood every time you go to church, so him being made of chocolate might be nice, compared to the normal dry crackers.

 

I find the sculpture & title combination clearly ironic or sarcastic. Then the timing for Easter. I think that Cavallaro is provoking outrage for the sake of PR. Or he is just so daft that he never considered the buttons he would press, which I doubt. I guess with this story Cavallaro's market value has doubled.

 

The stupidity - it burns!

Death threats over some art - hmm, where have we heard this one before? Sounds very similar to some other crazy cult that's been in the news a lot lately. It seems that organised insanity isn't much different from institution to institution...

 

I don't think it was a particularly good idea to start off with. I mean if you think about it there's probably goning to be *some* people who would be against it (which has been proven). Though death threats seem a little too extreme IMO.

 

Ever heard of "Piss Christ"?

 

Ah yes, "Piss Christ".

The old controversy between freedom of expression as it was seen on the left, and the right being angry over a piece of taxpayer funded blasphemy (more along the line of my view). Western culture has accepted that there is nothing wrong in using whatever means to argue that the Christian dogmas and teachings are morally corrupt. Freedom of expression. There certainly is the issue of good taste about either "piss christ" or the comparably charitable depiction "My Sweet Lord".

But all that seems limited to Christianity, and there seems to be the impression to, horrors, apply that sort of criticism or ridicule to any other religion to conform with the requirements of political correctness. "Piss Christ", ok, but what about a "Piss Mohammad", or chocolate Mohammad? Uh, we want to be culturally sensitive. Group hugs to everything exotic, the more exotic the better, because by embracing something exotic you have a trophy that underlines your 'open-mindedness' and sophistication. IMO a lot of the much praised multiculturalism is a facade to hide behind to not having to make inconvenient judgements, an serves as an excuse for intellectual and moral cowardice.

Still, to apply criticism and ridicule are the basic rights of anyone living in a western democracy. But with accepting that, we should still expect citizens and artists alike to apply a measure of good taste. Those Christians going to gay districts with 'Burn in hell' posters are to me just as obnoxious and distasteful as the 'religion sucks' idiots who can't wait to tell anyone how superior and rational atheism is, or artists dealing with religion in a comparable way.
Still, I find it difficult to make a case that the Jyllands-Posten's cartoons were offensive, or the "My Sweet Lord" in question, but "Piss Christ" was well beyond that. Serrano wasn't murdered, and Cavallaro won't be murdered. They were and are disputed, and rightly so. That's freedom, that's democracy, however galling the positions taken in the process are.

It is as much an result of our 'western sophistication' as of our western loss of faith. We just don't have enough faith anymore to get angry about blasphemy. And those who have, we consider crackpots. Wether they are, I'm not sure. And wether the reliance on a strictly value free egalitarianism really brings us forward is another question. I doubt it. I think the roots of religious tolerance were driven by ideas that didn't aim on where we are now.

 

Maybe if they make a new one from white chocolate?

 

Well, since they've cancelled the showing (due to unexpected outrage ), can I eat the statue?

 

...

.. .. ..

I.. ... ... ..........

Um, yeah....

I find this actually pretty funny. The only complaint I'd have is that he's probably still sculpted as a standard caucasian. Guess what, Jesus was a Jew and Jews have rather distinct facial features. They also usually aren't blond.

Other than that, I think the whole thing's quite distasteful (except the chocolate ) and downright hilarious. I'm not sure which is funnier, the fact that they made Him out of chocolate, that the Catholics are protesting a Chocolate Deity, or that the creators hadn't expected this much outrage.

I don't know, maybe I have a twisted sense of humor.

 

Gives the expression "Sweet Jesus" a whole new meaning.....

 

You guys are hilarious: First, you show absolute disrespect for what others believe to be Holy - of course, you would be the first to complain about disrespect towards another religion - as long as it was not Christianity. But worst of all is that there's a lot of you who think that Christians are (obviously) just a bunch of narrow-minded, bigots who would all topple over if Jesus was (gasp) Jewish (or something). And if he had distinct (of all things) "facial features." But there's one thing about narrow-minded bigots (hint)-- they are always where you least expect them...

 

I bet if Jesus played football, he'd still wear sandals.

 

As a Mormon, I think I'm more upset about the waste of 200 lbs of chocolate...

But seriously, I think the portrayal of His genitals is disrespectful to the Saviour, and an offence on par with the cartoons of Mohammed.

Where's the KKK when you want some headlines...

 

so its not an offense at all, just like the cartoons wasn't?

seriously i think the outrage over this is as silly as the outrage by muslims over the drawings, i guess it only shows that narrowminded people who will be offended about anything, is to be found in all cultures.

 

Refering to anyone or any group in particular? I for one have no problem with chocolate Mohammad, and while a piss Mohammad (like piss Christ) is utterly tasteless and pretty lame as far as art is concerned, that's really no reason for death threats or suppressing it in any way.

I really don't see what's the big deal about Jesus made out of chocolate - and so what that he's nude? So are a lot of other sculptures. It's not like this is the height of bad taste or anything - it's just a sculpture of Jesus made out of chocolate...

And why is anyone here defending people making death threats over art? Even if it is tactless - *it's still just art*. It's a statement, not something that harms anyone.

... Did you pay any attention during the Danish cartoon thing? I can't remember much support for the Muslims in that at all. I also find it pretty funny that you think I'd support some other religion just so long as it wasn't Christianity - I think they're all just as loony as the other. Why do you think I would cheer for any of them?

I really, really don't understand the support for removing art because of death threats. Suppression of free speech is a strange thing to see so many people defending...

 

I glad Cavallaro didn't add those blue and yellow sugar eyes like the bunnies have.

 

Wake me up when the Christians start rioting, burning things, and beheading people.