…and this is a 
We prefer our Jebus impotent, please
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 2, 2008 1:03 PM, by PZ Myers
Somebody took offense again. An art museum in England is exhibiting some controversial statues, and of course some kook can't just stay away, they have to make sure no one else gets to see them.
A Christian group is taking an art centre to court, claiming it displayed an indecent statue of Jesus Christ.
The artwork was part of an exhibition at Gateshead's Baltic Centre featuring several plaster figures with erections, including ET, Mickey Mouse and Jesus.
Lawyers for Christian Emily Mapfuwa, 40, of Essex, are bringing a civil case for outraging public decency.
It seems a little unkind to demand that the poor guy be eternally flaccid, as well as tortured. And look! Fatwah envy!
Mrs Mapfuwa, of Brentwood, said Baltic would not have dared depict Mohammed in such a way.
Comments
Posted by: Scienceman123 | September 2, 2008 1:05 PM
Pics or it didn't happen.
Posted by: Lee Picton | September 2, 2008 1:07 PM
And christian beliefs are due respect because?
Posted by: Chris | September 2, 2008 1:13 PM
Unfortunately, it won't be a surprise if she wins this lawsuit, either through intimidating the museum to remove the offending piece, or through judgment if it happens to go to trial.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2008 1:14 PM
Many older pictures did have Jesus with an erection, as one might expect of a god. It's really a bit much to be objecting to art history, as well as to Jesus having a bit of excitement.
You'd think they might at least not bother trying to tell God what to do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Skippy | September 2, 2008 1:14 PM
The Xians just can't seem to get riled up these days without tacking the tired old "You wouldn't do this to the Muslims" bit onto their argument, can they?
Posted by: SteveM | September 2, 2008 1:14 PM
Mickey Mouse with an erection? Now that's courage, taking on Catholics is nothing compared to taking on Disney!
Posted by: Captain Underpants | September 2, 2008 1:15 PM
I found a pic here:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article677221.ece
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 2, 2008 1:18 PM
Mircea Eliade, in "The Sacred & The Profane"
Put Religion in a nutshell, or a thimble--
It's not just that it's merely nuts, or totally insane,
It's the worshipping of any phallic symbol.
The cross is just a penis (so are steeples; so's the Pope)
Though the logic, I'll admit, is somewhat iffy;
But any axis mundi must be phallic, so I hope
They're not too upset when Jesus gets a stiffy.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 2, 2008 1:19 PM
Now having seen the picture, I might object that anyone would consider it to be art.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Gene | September 2, 2008 1:21 PM
I'm not sure that simply showing Jesus with a boner qualifies as art. It's simply not that original. Now, if Mickey were giving it to Jesus up the ass while ET was T-bagging Jesus, well then, THAT would be art (and worth the price of admission).
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 2, 2008 1:27 PM
What no "hung" on the cross jokes?!
Posted by: Mena | September 2, 2008 1:37 PM
After seeing the pictures I'd have to say it's not just fatwa envy...
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 2, 2008 1:37 PM
I'm getting sick of Fatwa envy. The reason the rest of us don't pick on Muslims nearly as much is because the Christians here in North America and elsewhere have that corner already covered.
Having said that, there's no reason we can't turn Fatwa envy back on these pissants: every time they try to shut down a museum exhibit, assault the teaching of evolution, or go to war over a cracker, all we have to do is point out some anti-Christian Imam and say to the Christards, "Hey! Why are you picking on PZ, Webster Cook or the Piss Christ? You wouldn't dare do the same to this Muslim, would you?"
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 2, 2008 1:38 PM
"What no "hung" on the cross jokes?!"
Also, as the son of a carpenter, he should be used to working with wood.
Posted by: 938MeV | September 2, 2008 1:38 PM
So, which one had the biggest erection?
Posted by: Alan C | September 2, 2008 1:39 PM
Here is another photo.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/2071635165_a4ee52948d_o.jpg
Posted by: Timothy Wood | September 2, 2008 1:43 PM
They just make themselves seem so retarted. I just don't understand how they don't realize it.
Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2008 1:44 PM
From the Sun article:
Yes, it's hard to find words to express such outrage. Historically, such outrage is usually expressed by the sort of actions the Christian Voice Director demands -- the "statue's destruction," presumably by fire.
Frankly, I'm starting to really enjoy the spectacle of people who can't fight back with reason and argument taking refuge behind incoherent outrage. If Jesus lived, then he was just a frickin' person. Get over yourselves.
They're not upset because Jesus isn't being treated as special: it's really because they are no longer being treated as special, as "people of faith" who have exercised the belief muscle and performed the bold and daring strongman act of accepting the highly unlikely simply because they "hope" it is true. The only thing keeping them from feeling sheepish about their beliefs was this sense of inherent privilege, of being one of the "wise" ones who can see the emperor's new clothes. No wonder they hate it when someone points out that the emperor is naked -- and has a woody, moreover. They were the ones with the secret woody, getting a rise from their sense of righteousness and humility.
How can one demonstrate one's humility when subject to such humiliation?
Posted by: Badjuggler | September 2, 2008 1:47 PM
We may have a sticky jurisdictional question if ET and Mickey Mouse decide to join this lawsuit...
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 2, 2008 1:50 PM
I object to this "art". On what basis do they claim to know what ET's reproductive anatomy looks like? I demand evidence, or that the offending piece....um, sculpture...be immediately removed!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Must... resist... Beavis and Butthead... joke...!!
Posted by: Pete Rooke | September 2, 2008 1:51 PM
Having lived the past 4 years in London I can assure you that there is no way they would have dreamed of insulting Mohammed.
Take the socialist opinion found in the Guardian for instance - they are perfectly happen to denigrate Catholicism and Christianity in general, railing vociferously against anti-blasphemy measures and laughing openly at the Pope, while at the same time maintaining an inordinate number of Islamist commentators including an extensive "blogging the Qur'an" section. (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/quran/)
This is true of the British Broadcasting Corporation who have no problem with blasphemous shows such as The Vicar of Dibley and have even debated scraping Songs of Praise - the one programme I find tolerable - or perhaps providing similar Islam based programming.
Posted by: Alex | September 2, 2008 1:54 PM
I live right next to the Baltic, and I'm definitely going to go and see this now it's been protested against. Hopefully they'll learn that this protest is more effective in generating publicity than perverting free speech.
Posted by: Rev Matt | September 2, 2008 2:01 PM
Wait a second, bad fanfic art has made it's way to museums? What the hell?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 2, 2008 2:02 PM
I don't understand why they're outraged. If only someone was commenting on this thread who could provide some sort of, I don't know, an analogy, or something...
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | September 2, 2008 2:03 PM
A Christian group is taking an art centre to court, claiming it displayed an indecent statue of Jesus Christ.
Walk into a church. There's Jesus nearly naked, bleeding to death and nailed to a cross. That's better? WTF?!
Posted by: gramomster | September 2, 2008 2:05 PM
Oh man... somehow the pictures made me think of a little fun we had when I worked in a local independent bookstore. This is in reference to the news that Anne Rice had gotten saved, found god, whatever. Ack. I remember the instigators got into some hot water, though I don't remember exactly why. It's a pretty laid-back place, but I guess for some reason this was considered over the line.
So, for your entertainment value, I present... christian erotica speculation!
Since Anne has gone over to the other side and written a work of christian fiction, we back in the break room were casting around ideas. If she were to write a work of christian erotica what would she call certain "unmentionables".
An unwrapped falafel
two fishes and a of loaf bread
jugs of wine
ripe pomegranites
cupping the figs
looking up the grape leaves
the crusty loaf
milking the camel
eating the last supper
his mighty staff
camel lingus
shearing the ewe
nailing the cross
sermon about the mount
a cristo sanchez
judas sandwich
Proposing her first Christian erotica book as Anne Rambling: The Claiming of Mary Magdalene with Fabio-esque Jesus tearing at Mary's gaping burka with camels and a blazing sunset on the sand....
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 2, 2008 2:07 PM
Thank goodness. The Pope and his pedophilia-enabling supporters deserve nothing less than scorn and mockery.
But did you have another point to make--besides the whinging?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 2, 2008 2:10 PM
Don't let them see this light switch.
Posted by: Julian | September 2, 2008 2:12 PM
England still has blasphemy laws on the books, doesn't it?
As to Mohammed not being depicted. 1) The artist didn't grow up in a society saturated with Islam, did he? No he grew up in one saturated with Jesus, so I doubt it even occurred to him to include Mohammed in an art display of fictional characters from his youth with erections. 2) There are no religious rules against the depiction of Jesus or God within Christianity; it is a happily idolatrous system of worship. Islam, like Judaism, is stridently anti-idol and forbids the depiction of Mohammed to prevent the personal worship of him. A Muslim artist looking to create a satire of Islamic images, then, would not use Mohammed either in all likelihood because they have no experience with said images and would instead use a Qu'ran.
Posted by: Mena | September 2, 2008 2:16 PM
Shorter Pete Rook:
Those muzzies are craaaazzzzeeeeeee!
Posted by: Jared Lessl | September 2, 2008 2:16 PM
So, what, they're claiming the guy managed to go through puberty and 15 years of adult life and never got wood? I think Mel Brooks said everything that needed to be said along those lines in History of the World Part 1.
> Walk into a church. There's Jesus nearly naked, bleeding to death and nailed to a cross. That's better? WTF?!
These are the same people who called a snuff film a cinematic masterpiece for the whole family. So yes, they really do think it is.
Posted by: Jonathan | September 2, 2008 2:21 PM
I am from Gateshead originally. It is a large town in the North East of England forming a small conurbation with the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. Historically, it has always been overshadowed by its more affluent neighbour, but in recent years it has received investment in the arts that has brought Anthony Gormley's Angel of the North, Sage and the Baltic. Baltic is a contemporary art venue housed in a gigantic converted flour mill, with a fantastic viewing gallery at the top providing vistas of the River Tyne and it's many bridges. The conversion of the flour mill began while I was still living in the North East, but was not complete until I left the region to do my PhD. It is always worth a visit when I am back home, as the exhibitions are always innovative and challenging. The exhibition described above come as no surprise, and is very much in the tradition of a gallery that opened with an installation of gigantic male and female nudes at the Gateshead and Newcastle ends of the Millennium Bridge, respectively. I usually expect at least one exhibit there which is not to my taste, perhaps even offensive to me. Several have been. I have never sued though. I had assumed that to do so would be an affront to the important principle of freedom of expression. Or does Jesus not want us to respect that?
Posted by: Bad Albert | September 2, 2008 2:25 PM
ET, Mickey Mouse, and Jesus. All three are works of fiction. What's the problem?
Posted by: JRQ | September 2, 2008 2:26 PM
From the article:
"This statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ."
Ah. So now these pompous, self-important fucks are going to lecture us on what the purpose of art is.
Why can't we just tell these people to go live in a goddamn cave if they don't want to be exposed to free expression?
Posted by: Skippy | September 2, 2008 2:27 PM
Having looked at the pictures, I notice that Jesus' junk is coming out of his knees. How...odd.
Honestly, would anyone outside of the UK even know about this -at all- without the church groups protesting? Messing with the Xians is probably the best free advertising their is.
Posted by: Jimbob | September 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Cover it up with a cracker! ;-)
Posted by: Axis of Weasel | September 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Okay, you artsy types, step up to the plate. We need a Virgin Mary, naked and waxed.
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | September 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Note that the Sun article referenced in post # 7 is dated January 11, 2008, and that the exhibit was scheduled to end on January 20. So this is all old news. Any follow-up? Also note that the Sun, with their million+ circulation, used this suit as an excuse to run a nice picture of the offending statue. Way to go christian soldiers!
But most important, note that even little girls in the statue have "erections". I don't think they are erections at all, but depictions of witches disguised as famous people and riding broom sticks (or baguettes, or ???).
When I first started to read about this story and before I saw the pictures, I thought the depiction was of Christ on the cross with an erection, and this raised a very interesting question that must be addressed by all thinking theologians. When a male is hanged or garroted (and the hanging is the slow kind where the victim "dances" on the end of the rope, not the fast kind where they are dropped from a height sufficient to break the neck and kill instantly) he almost invariably springs an erection. Crucifixion actually kills the victim the same way that slow hanging and garroting do: by slow asphyxiation. This raises the question: does a male who is crucified get an erection?
Posted by: Mena | September 2, 2008 2:32 PM
Since Islam doesn't allow pictures of Mohammed, who knows what he may have looked like? I think that that isn't a statue of Jesus, it's Mohammed. What do you guys think? ;^)
Ok, this one is off topic but it's hilarious. It would even hilarious if this turns out to have been photoshopped:
http://thumbsnap.com/images/fRpPAWYI.jpg
Sarah Palin is definitely a GOoPer!
Posted by: Jackal | September 2, 2008 2:45 PM
I was expecting a David-esque statue with fine detail of realistic (if slightly exaggerated) erect genitailia. Instead, we have crudely slapped together figures with baguettes-like (hat tip to AnswersInGenitals) lumps coming out of everyone's midsection. It's cartoonish. How can anyone take that sculpture seriously?
Posted by: Evolving Squid | September 2, 2008 3:00 PM
Of course, we all know that the only DECENT portrayal of Iesu is as a light-skinned, light-haired, blue-eyed, Northern-European-looking man in a toga and sandals, with a fairly neatly trimmed beard with hands, that have never seen a day's work, outstretched to the unwashed masses.
I've oft wondered why you never see a portrayal of Jesus as a swarthy, black-haired, black bearded, brown-eyed (middle-eastern), well-tanned, and dark-brown-skinned (he was a carptenter, he had to work outside), with callused hands arguing with a foreman over taking too long a lunch break on the construction site.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 2, 2008 3:07 PM
Gods are allergic to verisimilitude.
Posted by: Noadi | September 2, 2008 3:12 PM
*sigh* I was kind of hoping for good sculptures (I am a sculptor after all) but instead they really are terrible. Sometimes roughness in a sculpture works but when doing well known pop figures like Jesus, Mickey, and ET being more faithful to the originals but with well sculpted, detailed, lifelike penises would have been far more effective. I think the crucified frog from a few days ago was much better. So I wouldn't in the least be disappointed to see that crap tossed out of a museum I don't want it done for such a ridiculous reason
Posted by: Rick | September 2, 2008 3:33 PM
Evolving Squid,
I think that asking Christians for a reality based version of Jesus is asking a little too much.
Posted by: Capital Dan | September 2, 2008 3:40 PM
Awww... Look at you and your little fatwa envy.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | September 2, 2008 3:42 PM
http://briancarl.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/jesus.bmp
Suffer the little children...
Posted by: Matt | September 2, 2008 3:43 PM
I saw the offending sculptures. They were a few centimeters tall (but much longer in one of the other two dimensions) and were a small part (excuse the pun) of a much larger collection of other sculptures by the same artist.
I'd also like to point out that people who were offended are in a very small minority and I expect the case won't get very far in court.
Posted by: amk | September 2, 2008 3:48 PM
Mena, that Palin photo is a shoop. Sadly, No! link to the originals.
Posted by: karen | September 2, 2008 3:50 PM
Jebus was in the back row, second from the left, correct? So is the objection that he didn't have the mightiest Willy?
Too bad the (ahem) artist wasn't influenced by the FSM. I don't care about Mickey Mouse, but I'm curious about what kind of junk he gave to E.T. Did E.T. outdo Christ? Did Mickey?
Posted by: amk | September 2, 2008 3:53 PM
Pete Rooke,
A female vicar with a sex drive. Appalling! Scrapping "Songs of Praise" wouldn't have meant the BBC promoted islam over christianity.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 4:05 PM
She's in Brentwood and she's outraged by an exhibition in Gateshead, nearly 300 miles away, that closed over six months ago.
That's just weird.
The Baltic is a nice gallery, by the way, well worth a visit if you're in the area.
Posted by: alex | September 2, 2008 4:10 PM
as an art student, i find it hilarious that people can still be genuinely offended, or deeply shocked by pieces of art (and demand its censorship). christ, duchamp was nearly a century ago now - we're long past that.
the classic, frequent giveaway is when the "critic" claims their target is "not a real artist" thus revealing that they, themselves have not got the slightest clue how art works.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 4:19 PM
This guy has exhibits in the Tate Modern and the Saatchi. The private prosecution will go nowhere.
The blasphemy laws have been repealed. The prosecution is for "outraging public decency". Which it obviously didn't do. Riots on the south bank of the Tyne were there none. I think it's significant that the person bringing this prosecution isn't even a local.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 2, 2008 4:36 PM
Peter Rooke spewed:
So blasphemous in fact that the current Archbishop of Canterbury made a guest appearance and is known to be a fan of the show. Equally a good number of Anglican clergy also seem to like it.
Oh hang on. The Church of England allows women to be ordained. Clearly they are not true Christians as a true Christians would never allow. Women belong in the home.
Julian asked:
Not anymore. They were repealed earlier this year.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | September 2, 2008 4:45 PM
This is the one attitude that really does scare me about Christians.
The reason, of course, that Baltic (or most other people) would not dare to so depict Mohammed is because religious zealots might KILL him for it.
Right now in the world Christians, more or less, won't do that. That's a point in favour of Christians. Islam is certainly no less mock-worthy than Christianity, but it's not really worth dying for the point either.
However, the total lack of understanding by Christians of why this seeming unfairness is actually a good thing eludes so many outspoken Christians. That leads me to believe it's just a matter of time before Christians, emboldened by their fanatic Muslim brethren, start their own jihads/fatwas/heretic killings as well. That's a big minus.
Posted by: Michelle | September 2, 2008 4:46 PM
Mickey too? Did Disney sue?
...I'm so turned off right now.
Posted by: Cyberguy | September 2, 2008 4:51 PM
I would have liked to hear that the artist had also created a statue of the Virgin Mary with an erection!
That would be funny, and would really get those loons in a lather! You gotta laugh.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | September 2, 2008 4:56 PM
Apart from the "no depictions" bit, you'd think Muslims would have less of a problem with the idea than Christians. Mohammed, of course, had wives and children, so presumably him getting it up is fully in line with Islamic belief.
Posted by: arensb | September 2, 2008 5:03 PM
May I present the word "fatwaah", in case it proves useful? It's similar to a waahmbulance, but in a religious context.Posted by: A 'somewhat open to the scientific arguements' Catholic | September 2, 2008 5:04 PM
@ EvolvingSquid #42 and #56 and Rick #45:
You make some good points. Rick, I agree that portraying Jesus as a (more or less) Scandanavian pretty boy is rediculous and laughable. And EvolvingSquid, I can only hope that more people can identify with your reasoning in #56 and the Christians that use this 'arguement' can realize it really doesn't get us anywhere.
Just curious, why Jebus instead of Jesus? Is there a joke I'm missing or is just an annoying little jab to spark a reaction from those who might give a damn? What's the point? I should take a course from Professor Myers and insist on calling him Professor Moron....but again, what's the point? You evolutionsists/atheists/scientist...whatever you call yourselves seem interstingly satisfied with sitting behind the proverbial 'easy target' in class, whilst constantly shooting spit balls and pulling hair until your 'easy target' decides enough is enough. You're right EvolvingSquid, if people insist on continually 'pressing the buttons' of Christians, it is only a matter of time - justified or not.
Posted by: AlanWCan | September 2, 2008 5:08 PM
They need to put it side by side with Cynthia's Jimi Hendrix' plaster cast here
That'll show them who is omnipotent.
Posted by: Neil Vickers | September 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Hey, that's my old neighbourhood. I used to live in a town called Billericay, just down the road from Brentwood, Essex.
I'd just like to take the time to point out that there are actually very few religious lunatics in that area. You've just managed to find a very vocal one.
That is all.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Rather unfortunate for the theists' claim that religion makes one a more moral individual, don't you think?
Posted by: Mena | September 2, 2008 5:16 PM
amk@49:
That's what I figured since there seems to be a seam at her neck (I do stuff like this but with the GIMP so it kind of stood out to me) but I still think that it's hilarious. The only thing that would have made it better would have been to have turned that seam into a necklace with a cross on it. Totally GOP. Jesus, jingo, and jihad all the way, baby.
Posted by: Natalie | September 2, 2008 5:17 PM
"A 'somewhat open to the scientific arguements' Catholic", Jebus comes from an episode of the Simpsons, where Homer becomes a missionary to avoid a debt. When his plane starts crashing he yells out "Save me, Jebus" or something similar.
Posted by: Jimmy | September 2, 2008 5:23 PM
Hey how about a statue or pic of PZ taking it up the Hershey Highway. That would be great art.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 5:30 PM
Fatwa envy has long deserved an article of its own. Please visit and add your own favorite instances.
Posted by: ndt | September 2, 2008 5:37 PM
I thought Jesus was supposed to be fully human. Human males get erections. So what's the problem?
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 5:44 PM
Yay, more Fatwa envy! The way things are going, this meme will kick off any day now
Posted by: YetAnotherKevin | September 2, 2008 5:58 PM
article quote @18 "It's the Lord Jesus Christ being humiliated, ridiculed and villified."
I thought that was the fucking _point_ of The Crucifixion.
Posted by: Julian | September 2, 2008 6:00 PM
Phoenician: There are all manner of apocryphal Mohammad stories out there; in fact, that's what most of Qu'ranic scholarship is based on. I wouldn't be surprised if a few were slightly more ribald than we would expect; the Arabs I've known in my life (admittedly, a small percentage of the whole) typically had a rather earthy sense of humor, to put it politely.
Posted by: secularguy | September 2, 2008 6:07 PM
Same reason as Buy-bull, Gawd, holy Spook, etc. - because reverence for these fictitious entities is undeserved, common, tiresome, and silly.Posted by: Louis | September 2, 2008 6:10 PM
Just FYI:
Gateshead and the surrounding area is where the christian fundamentalist car dealer Peter Vardy has "generously" helped to fund 3 (or maybe 4 now) "academies". I.e. these are state run and operated schools, paid for by the UK taxpayer (and Vardy's ~10% of the set up cost "gift") in which the donor gets a remarkable amount of control over the educational policy. To the extent that these schools actually teach creationism in science classes in a manner that would be impossible even in the USA.
Putting on anything that "offends" christians in Gateshead gets my vote for "Comedy Fundy Baiting Of The Year".
Louis
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 6:14 PM
Oh do shut up Jimmy. Go back to your corner and play with yourself.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 2, 2008 6:18 PM
And, given your interest in proctology, make sure you wash your hands after.
Posted by: CJO | September 2, 2008 6:22 PM
Naw, c'mon. I'm sure Jimmy here's a great sculptor. We should encourage him. He has this concept, and, granted, it's a little... icky, but it's perfectly common for visionary artists to draw upon their fantasy life for subject matter, and who are we to say that he can't make the art that would fulfill his wishes?
So go right ahead, little boy. Here's your popsickle sticks, and the Elmer's is right over there on the art table.
Posted by: IceFarmer | September 2, 2008 6:27 PM
The detail of the statue isn't what I was expecting. It's kinda crappy, reminding me of something that the guys from South Park would do. It's like the artist bought a cheap Jesus and then put a really cheesy weiner on it. I was hoping for something more interesting and to see all the other characters with boners for a good chuckle. I guess I'll have to show this to my Catholic aunt if I want to see something funny. This is far more lame than offensive by any stretch. It'll be funny to see how many people call for it's destruction.
Posted by: Rjaye | September 2, 2008 6:27 PM
Hey, in one of the photos of this artwork, there IS a Virgin Mary with an erection...
Hehehehe.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 2, 2008 6:31 PM
I guess school is out.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 6:50 PM
IceFarmer | September 2, 2008 6:27 PM, #78
Yeah, I find it disappointing. However that is presumably just one of many statues in the single installation. I assume that he went for a broad effect. It's fairly common in conceptual art to use crude, kitsch styling like this. Displays of complete exhibits in the Saatchi and Tate show that his installations are generally quite large and very, very beautiful. I wouldn't judge without seeing the whole thing.
Posted by: jpf | September 2, 2008 6:57 PM
Again, it should be jihad envy. Christians are not envious of fatwahs because they can and do issue their own, just under different terms and levels of officialness. What Christians who do this are envious of is the deathly fear of offending Muslims, and that arises from the jihad mentality of declaring literal war on anyone who upsets you in the slightest. You're just simply using the wrong word.</pedant>
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 6:58 PM
Pete Rooke | September 2, 2008 1:51 PM, #22
This is true of the British Broadcasting Corporation who have no problem with blasphemous shows such as The Vicar of Dibley
Oh Pete, you sly old POE, you! For a minute there you had me believing you were really an outraged Christian.
But calling the lovely old Vicar of Dibley, that modern-day Don Camillo, one of the most popular programs on British television, blasphemous, shrieks "parody" so loudly that you've blown your cover.
You naughty troll, you.
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 7:01 PM
Stop hurting the meme.Posted by: CJO | September 2, 2008 7:07 PM
Theoretically, competition could be good for the meme in the long run. The high-profile case of Salman Rushdie, will, I think, tend to tilt it in favor of "fatwa envy", which is also arguably somewhat more euphonious than "jihad envy."
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 7:18 PM
#83 - Tony - Ol' Pete is a much sicker troll than you think. Ewuuu, icky Pete!
Posted by: Sastra | September 2, 2008 7:21 PM
A 'somewhat open to the scientific arguments' Catholic #61 wrote:
What, religion is an "easy target?" Well, in one sense, yes, I think so -- though I doubt you'd agree with that particular angle.
Whenever atheists go after religious extremists we're accused of attacking "easy targets." But what happens when we go after religious moderates and liberals? The cry goes out to hey, go after the BAD guys, we're the good ones on your side with evolution, remember?
We just can't win with you guys, tch.
Posted by: Eric Arthur Blair | September 2, 2008 7:25 PM
So who made her to go to the museum to force her to become outraged?
Posted by: jpf | September 2, 2008 7:26 PM
The meme is wrong (fatwah)! Death to the meme (jihad)!
(The latter is what these Christians are envious of. They do more than their share of the former.)
Also, I think more people (in the West at least) are familiar with the term jihad from the current War on Terra. The Rushdie incident was like, what, almost two decades ago?
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 7:29 PM
TouchéThe only concern now is that the meme is not strong enough to face healthy competition, so a mutation of the meme could mean that there isn't enough resources to suit either idea and eventually both will die in deadlock. If only we could have gotten this on 4Chan
Posted by: jpf | September 2, 2008 7:31 PM
"fatwa|fatwah" gets 3.8 million hits on Google.
"jihad" gets 20.3 million.
The Zeitgeist has spoken!
Posted by: S Oberski | September 2, 2008 7:32 PM
Wouldn't there have to be a prepubescent girl in the display for Mohammed to have an erection ?
Posted by: Patricia | September 2, 2008 7:36 PM
Slightly OT - Speaking of erections, Bristol Palins boyfriend is going to 'join the family' at the gawd soaked convention. Now it seems that flaunting your sin is in.