Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I can't be the only one getting a good laugh out of the furor over the display of a sculpture of an anatomically correct Jesus made out of chocolate in New York. Predictably, Bill Donohue of the Catholic Defense League threw a temper tantrum. One has to wonder, though, what really bothers him. Is it the fact that Jesus is anatomically correct? Jesus did, after all, have genitalia. Or is it the fact that the divine penis is made of chocolate and therefore a bit too dark for his tastes? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Frankly, I think the piece is rather interesting, especially in light of the impending Easter holiday - a holiday on which we give out chocolate bunnies. Bunnies, you see, represent fertility, which was the original premise of the pagan holiday celebrated every spring after which Easter is patterned in many cultures. So a chocolate Jesus, particularly an anatomically correct one, is a clever bit of commentary on the whole thing.
Comments
He hates it because it made him drool.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 2, 2007 2:10 PM
"...a bit too dark for his tastes?"
ROTFL
I wonder if the anatomical correctness was circumsized.
Posted by: nal | April 2, 2007 2:40 PM
Folks who put "people" on such ridiculously high pedestals could do with a gentle reminder of the humanity of their idols every so often.
Reminds me of an episode of The Goodies from 25 odd years back. Discovering the holiday cottage they were going to didn't have a toilet lead to the following:
Tim: "Well, we'll just have to not go for a week."
Bill: "We can't just not go for a week!"
Tim: "The queen *never* goes!"
:-)
Posted by: David Durant | April 2, 2007 2:41 PM
I thought it was pretty clever, too. Ol' Bill Donohue said that it was unfair that the artist and gallery could do this to Jesus, but neither would dare put up a chocolate Mohammed, which is probably true, but using that logic, no one should ever paint Jesus or see him in toast and tortilla shells either, since Muslims don't go for any of that.
The sculpture is decent, too, not grotesque, and made of chocolate, not feces or urine. I don't really understand the outrage. Marble, fine, but chocolate, evil? I don't get it.
Posted by: Jonathan | April 2, 2007 3:10 PM
Not that I share their outrage, but I suspect that a factor that distinguishes the chocolate Jesus form a marble Jesus is the fact that the chocolate one is intended eventually to be eaten. Of course the question then arises as to why this is offensive and Communion is not; presumably the answer is that one is a sacrament and the other is not.
Posted by: Bil | April 2, 2007 3:27 PM
I'll never understand the ultra-religious. I saw the Chocolate Jesus as a commentary on the commercialization (or chocolatification) of Easter, and how the secular candy companies are diluting the meaning that Christians assign to the day. It seems to me that instead of death threats, the religious should be praising this sculpture.
Posted by: Salad Is Slaughter | April 2, 2007 3:30 PM
What I find most ironic is the coverage by "Reason" magazine in their blog. See here.
One would think that libertarians would not find it necessary to crop the picture so as to remove the naughty bits.
Posted by: Ahcuah | April 2, 2007 3:51 PM
I dunno, Bil. I've seen how they make chocolate sculptures, and I doubt you'd wanna eat it.
Posted by: Jonathan | April 2, 2007 4:20 PM
The sculpture is two years old. It's probably a bit stale.
Posted by: Seraph | April 2, 2007 4:40 PM
I put a comment in the "Reason" section. Nick mentions that the picture he used just happened to be the first he came across (so it was cropped by somebody else).
He has since added a link to the full picture.
I really suspect that those who are upset are more upset that he is naked than that he is chocolate.
Posted by: Ahcuah | April 2, 2007 4:45 PM
Gives a whole new meaning to "my sweet Lord." [Surely someone has said that already....]
Why does anyone pay Donohue any attention at all? Beats me. Other than he gives good soundbite.
Posted by: flatlander100 | April 2, 2007 4:51 PM
Why do the MSM continue to promote a bigoted blowhard like Donahue?
Why do those same MSM continue to follow their script that Donahue represents a religion with millions of adherents?
My apologies - I shouldn't even waste my time asking such things. That's just the current role of the MSM. And they actually question as to why no one is paying attention their idiotic media narratives.
Posted by: Poly | April 2, 2007 4:55 PM
Several years ago I visited a gallery in Paris that had an entire large room filled with small chocolate sculptures of Christ on the cross. As we were leaving the building, a teacher led in the front door a group of children who all appeared to be aged about five or six. As the teacher began lecturing them on various pieces of artwork, the children listened intently, except for one little boy at the back of the line who kept twisting his head around and sniffing deeply. As we passed him, I heard him whisper to the next child in line, "I smell chocolate!"
Posted by: Julia | April 2, 2007 7:40 PM
How is it different from the standard "Santa in the manger" cartoon over which Christians shake their heads and say; "Yeah, Christmas is getting too commercial. We should remember the reason for the season"
I think Donohue wants to put a fatwa on somebody's ass. He'd love it if people were afraid of the church like in the old days. He's jealous of the Muslims for acting the way he wishes he could act.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 2, 2007 8:07 PM
Yes; the artist. That's the title of the work.
Posted by: Skemono | April 2, 2007 8:31 PM
What do you think of when you think about eating a chocolate bunny? What's the big joke? That's right. First you eat the ears. Everyone eats the ears first. "Hey, who ate the ears off my chocolate bunny?" It's a routine cultural reference.
Ok. Now take one look at the chocolate Jesus -- the full view, not the clipped version. Small little ears. So what part would you naturally think of eating first.
Yep. Bill Donohue knows what we're all thinking. Bill Donohue thought it too. That's what got him so mad.
Posted by: Sastra | April 2, 2007 10:04 PM
I saw this on PZ's blog and the big discussion there was whether the Catholics were offended because the medium made J.C. look like a person of color or because the Holy Genitals were exposed.
Duh! It's the lack of loincloth, no brainer!
Seeing their lord in the altogether destroys the xtian (and particularly Catholic) collective unconscious fable that Jesus' pesky parts fell off shortly after the incident in the temple (and most certainly before he had any sinful, um, emissions!)
The only reason the baby Jesus (as depicted in Gothic and Renaissance art) has a willy is to establish that he is the SON of God and morally superior in his maleness.
Posted by: twincats | April 2, 2007 11:44 PM
Hey,
Just wanted to point out the fact that Tom Waits did a song called "Chocolate Jesus" on his Mule Variations album a few years back. Check out lyrics here:
http://www.tomwaitslibrary.com/Lyrics/Mulevariations/chocolatejesus.htm
Carry on.
Posted by: egbooth | April 3, 2007 12:30 AM
There's a discussion on a news programme between Donohue and the artist on youtube (and various other places). In it Donohue objects for two reasons (as far as it's possible to make out anything coherent from his ranting).
1. The statue was intended to be eaten. The artist denies that this is true.
2. The statue has no loincloth. This is just stupid. While most depictions of the crucixion have Jesus in a loincloth, there are those that don't. I've heard artists (Christian ones) say that depicting Jesus naked is a way of emphasising his fully human nature. It certainly isn't blasphemous.
Donohue is just someone who searches constantly for things to get outraged about, and the media allow his outrage (real or pretended) to suggest that there is reason for outrage. Responsible journalists would have pressed him much harder to say what is offensive about the statue, rather than letting him spew reportable soundbites expressing his nebulous offense.
Posted by: iain | April 3, 2007 4:27 AM
How about a Darwin made of shit for Darwin day?
Wouldn't that be funny too?
I mean, its all in fun.
Right?
Posted by: Grady | April 3, 2007 8:09 AM
What's the big deal?
After all, if Jesus was indeed God made into Man, then he must have had a penis,right?
Do the Gospels explicitly say that Jesus had his naughty bits covered?
And munching on chocolate Jesus' body sounds a lot more appetizing than munching on actual Jesus' flesh, as supposedly happens during communion. Yuck!!
Posted by: ZacharySmith | April 3, 2007 9:11 AM
Grady,
Help me out here - what's offensive about chocolate as a medium? You obviously find it very offensive, given the comparison to shit. Please say why - I honestly don't get it.
Posted by: iain | April 3, 2007 9:13 AM
You really don't like chocolate? I think it tastes good.
Posted by: Bourgeois_rage | April 3, 2007 9:17 AM
Grady, dude, if you're an artist who uses feces as a medium, and you want to use it to make a statement, go for it. That's what art's all about.
Posted by: Dono | April 3, 2007 9:26 AM
It always strikes me as a bit hypocritical for christians to have their very first commandment condemn idolatry and then worship idols of JC and the cross made from non-edible substances.
Posted by: Soldats | April 3, 2007 9:43 AM
Like all art, a persons reaction to then chocolate Jesus says a LOT more about them than the artwork itself. What you see when you look at it shows your views on the Christian religion. Being raised godless, it just says yummy to me
Posted by: Tulle | April 3, 2007 9:45 AM
Grady -
Go ahead and make shit sculptures if you want, but what the hell does a Darwin made of poo have to do with a chocolate Jesus?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | April 3, 2007 11:43 AM
Grady wrote:
What's all in fun? This sort of art is not about fun, it's about making a provocative statement. The artist certainly succeeded in doing so. And if you wanna make a sculpture of Darwin out of shit, go for it; I doubt anyone would try and shut you down.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 3, 2007 11:48 AM
Oh, I get it! He's pretending to believe that people worship Charles Darwin!
Posted by: Dono | April 3, 2007 12:26 PM
Ignore Grady. It's one of many psuedonemns who is part of an entitiy we call Legion. It is a known troll who has a hard time accepting facts and and easy time spewing snarky leading comments like the one above.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 3, 2007 1:21 PM
twincats:
You don't know what you are talking about.
I suppose your use of the PZM blog as some sort of authority on religion - any religion - should have been the tipoff, but - sorry to say - I read through that the first time and so had to be subjected to your ignorant rantings.
Posted by: Poly | April 3, 2007 2:04 PM
Poly, are you sure you're not reading too much into twincats comment? Sure it was snarky, but lots of people make snarky comments like that or even worse.
His mention of PZ's blog didn't set off my radar simply because I, too, saw this topic first discussed there. And twincats didn't say anything about PZ, just that the comments there focused only on whether or not the color or the genitalia were what Donahue and other Catholics found most offensive.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 3, 2007 6:47 PM
Was that too snarky? I was just speaking from my experience as a Lutheran who grew up in a very Catholic neighborhood. I used to have in-depth discussions with my Catholic friend about things like whether or not Jesus ever got an erection or not. She maintained that no such thing ever happened because 'Jesus never sinned' and I argued that getting an erection was necessary because (most) all human males get them and Jesus was 'wholly God and wholly man.' By the time we graduated high school, we had agreed to disagree.
Posted by: twincats | April 3, 2007 7:46 PM
LOL @ the poop darwin.
In a weird way, we are all just poop effigies of Darwin.
Posted by: Leni | April 3, 2007 7:56 PM
Doctorgoo:
Three comments regarding your defense.
(a) Using the PZ blog as any kind of authority on religion is just nonsense. 'twincats' didn't simply point out that he first saw the story there - that would be innocuous and irrelevant. He specifically referred to the "big discussion" on that blog as if it were credible.
(b)twincats claim that "Catholics were offended" implies some widespread - or even official - condemnation. Is there any evidence of that?
(c) As for your claim about "other Catholics" that you refer to as being offended. Can we get a specific identification of who these other Catholics are? And why are you giving them any credence? After all, the artist is also Catholic, and he wasn't offended. Why wouldn't you point that out as well? Maybe his view is actually more representative of "other Catholics".
Posted by: Poly | April 4, 2007 1:23 PM
twincats:
I use "he" only because I don't know you and the language requires a pronoun choice (I find artifices like "s/he" to be ugly).
If you are actually a "she", please do not take offense.
Posted by: Poly | April 4, 2007 1:35 PM
Poly,
I still think you're reading too much into this. To me, "big discussion" can mean a couple different things... it could mean that there were many commenters expressing their opinions... or it simply could have referred to the part of the discussion that he, personally, was most interested in. I just don't find the phrase "big discussion", or anything else that twincats wrote, to imply that PZ or any commenters there were somehow religious experts.
(And btw, some of them clearly are experts, comparatively speaking, of course. I'm just saying that whether or not they were speaking authoritatively wasn't a topic that twincats was addressing.)
Here's what I mean. Look again at what twincats wrote, with a single change:
Without mentioning PZ directly, I'm sure you'd agree that no implication is made about how authoritative the discussion is. It just wasn't an issue. I think you're just over-reacting to a minor reference to PZ's blog.
And besides all this, even if you truly did believe that twincats was just making trollish comments about all Catholics or all Christians, didn't his clarification put your mind more at ease?
When I wrote "other Catholics", I was referring to the subset of Catholics (who are typically more conservative in their theology) who agreed with him. To be even clearer, I could have included "other Christians" who agreed with Donahue's views as well.
And Poly, if you think I'm a person who thinks all Christians or all Catholics can be defined strictly by the "teachings" of their most conservative (and sometimes wacko) leaders, then you're painting me with the wrong brush here.
And personally, I clearly understand that the Pat Robertsons and the Bill Donahues don't represent mainstream Christian or Catholic theology here in America, even though there are plenty on BOTH sides who would claim they do. I understand that there are plenty of more liberal minded Christians (perhaps even yourself?) who find them as ridiculous as every one else here on Ed's or PZ's blog.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 4, 2007 2:26 PM