Chocolate Jesus anyone?

[Wynton]

The NY Daily News reports here that an artist outraged Catholics with plans to display a nude 6-foot chocolate Jesus during Holy Week.

"It's an all-out war on Christianity," fumed the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

According to the article, more people were offended by the nudity than the chocolate.

So my question is the following: do you, the good people of OOT and purveyors of "good taste" (pun intended), consider the materials or the nudity more offensive?

[guids]

No one on this forum is going to find either one (the medium or the nudity) offensive, it just isnt cool to do so. They would if it was Mohammad though.

[Wynton]

Actually, my question was poorly phrased: I meant to ask what OOT would believe most Christians would consider to be the more offensive aspect of the display.

And while we're at it, would the answer be different if we were talking about Muslims' reactions to a chocolate, nude Mohammad?

[kidcolin]

I'm not Christian, thus not offended, but I think it's sad what passes for "art" these days.

[guids]

I think the chocolate aspect?? I have no idea really. For the record, Im not offended, I think stunts like this are pretty dumb. I just dont get art for controversies sake.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
And while we're at it, would the answer be different if we were talking about Muslims' reactions to a chocolate, nude Mohammad?

[/ QUOTE ]
Muslims would suicide bomb you for this -- Christians just bitch about it.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, my question was poorly phrased: I meant to ask what OOT would believe most Christians would consider to be the more offensive aspect of the display.

And while we're at it, would the answer be different if we were talking about Muslims' reactions to a chocolate, nude Mohammad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, seeing as how any depiction of Mohammad AT ALL is blasphemous, I think they'd be kind of upset about it. Christians sort of invite more Christ-mockery because they themselves make so many silly effigies and representations of an idealized Christ figure.

Anyway, it's clearly offensive - it's *intended* to be offensive. Whether a piece of art has merit just based on being offensive is open to debate. Certainly much of modern art is based solely on shock.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
No one on this forum is going to find either one (the medium or the nudity) offensive, it just isnt cool to do so. They would if it was Mohammad though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because he's, you know...man with chocolate face?

[guids]

It is not intended to be offensive according to the article.

[tuq]

I wonder how big they made his chocolate penis. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]