Ironically, I'm late in posting today because I was unexpectedly invited to attend an Easter Egg hunt. You want to talk about offending Christian values, watch a handful of uncouth parents knock some 3 year old out of the way so their kid can get another dollar's worth of free candy off the ground. But enough of that, here's the controversial Chocolate Jesus in his full frontal glory [via
I'm not a church-goer but I do consider myself a Christian of sorts and I am not offended by this. It's a respectful depiction of the crucifixion that makes a valid statement on the commercialization of this formerly religious holiday. However, I am very offended that psuedo-Catholic and decidedly anti-Chrisitan hatemonger Bill Donohue was able to screech this showing to a halt with his insane blathering. Shame on the gallery for caving in to this lunatic and curse the media who continue to legitimize this self-serving egomanic by promoting his insane rantings in the news, instead of leaving him on the street corner with the rest of the long haired freaks passing out flyers and warning that the end is near.
What is offensive to Christian values about a simple rendering of the human body? It's not like the artist gave him an erection. I mean according to the Bible, didn't God make man in his own image? Are we to be so offended by God's creation that we're horrified by viewing it unclothed? And in fact, the "Bible says
that "while the Son of God hung naked for all to see and mock at, they cast lots for his seamless coat that was used to cover the entire body." It's historically accurate.
One wonders what would have happened to the artworks of the Great Masters if Donohue's vicious "Christians" plyed their moral judgements on those times. Look at the picture again and look at this one
. I don't see a whole lot of difference. Michelangelo made it in 1494 for the church Santa Spirito. In fact he often depicted
Jesus naked right up to his last sculpture
, left unfinished before his death.
And if we're to be offended by nudity, what would Donohue's rampaging mob have to say about DaVinci's rendering of the Madonna and child? Whoa baby. Not only do you have a nude Jesus but the Holy Virgin is showing some seriously naked breast there. I don't think it would pass the deranged Donohue's modesty test. And I guess Raphael, who painted baby Jesus nude
, more than once
would have been out of job too. I mean, holy genitals are holy genitals right?
I think we should have a counter-protest and flood that gallery and hotel with emails supporting the exhibit, because frankly I'm offended that they would even care if such vile people boycotted them.
Me, I'm not at all offended by a chocolate penis. I find this much more seriously offensive.
For more on Donohue and other related religious absurdities see Steve Benen
and if you stand the groan worthy puns, (which I loved), check out Joe Gandelman's
thoughts on the subject along with his usual excellent roundup of reactions around Blogtopia.
Labels: protest, Wingnuts