via popurls
Teen Arsonists Set Hollywood Hills on Fire (via digg) — it’s true. The smoke was billowing from the hills. I thought it was funny when I saw one tourist on TV say something like, “I heard the smog was bad, but this is ridiculous!” Then the reporter informed him it was a fire…
Red State Blues: Why small conservative towns are dying (via reddit)– beautifully written story about the abandoned towns in the west and midwest. I saw a lot of them on our trip across last fall. I can somewhat understand what that author means too… these people are furious because they thought they were doing “the right thing” living “the right way” and now they’ve got nothing.
Controversial chocolate Jesus exhibit cancelled (via tailrank)– so… the “My Sweet Lord” exhibit had to come down because of safety concerns. Why do very religious people seem to rely so heavily on violence? Seems backwards. Like the pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics.
Peanut butter disproves evolution — can anyone figure this video out? I know he’s outta his mind, but let’s assume for a moment that he isn’t? What on earth is he try to say? Something about how there are no ants in peanut butter jars– and that disproves evolution?
Family takes a picture of themselves every year for 30 YEARS! (via reddit)– this is pretty neat. I guess I was hoping for group pictures and a little more expression (why do they all look so somber each year?).. but interesting nonetheless.
That’s good they took down the exhibit.
Very offensive.
Fires happen alot in Calif
…
@Teresa, just because something is offensive doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be seen. Truth be told it offends me slightly, but that is all the more reason to keep it up.
Trev,
If you read my comment again all I said that it was good to that it went down. I didn’t say that it ought or should of gone down. God forbid I make any moral claims.
I really don’t want to get into a censorship debate right now.
Can’t I just simply state that it is good that a vile exhibit has been cancelled?
Well, Teresa, censorship aside I am not offended by the chocolate statue, but I am deeply offended by the constant barrage of intolerance and violence perpetrated by people who supposedly follow a man who’s very core was tolerance and non-violence. Great articles, as always, Amanda. Although I have actually been to one of the tiny towns mentioned in the red state story, and Terlingua, TX is not a group of people watching the town their ancestors built die. Most of the 35 or so people that live there have moved in to an already dead town in order to get off the grid as much as possible.
Oh, and your fly is open.
Made ya look!
Happy April Fool’s Day.
Oh cool Amanda you have a chocolate Jesus link next to a peanut butter theory link, or is that a peanut butter theory link next to a chocolate Jesus link. Sorry I’m silly.
Marius,
You should know better not to stereotype.
And if you are not offended by the statue I would really take the time for some self-reflection.
to find out if I’m anti-Christian or anti-Catholic.
Because I don’t see how someone would not be offended by something that desecrates one’s God (even it’s not your own).
I may not be Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu but you better believe I would treat their religious symbols with the up most respect.
It’s almost useless the word respect anymore… nobody has anymore.
@Teresa I don’t think it is vile, and it is a shame that many who don’t think it is vile will now not see it. I am offended because I have been brought up in an American family–and that means I associate nudity with sex, but only subconsciously, I make a conscious effort to separate them. Thus a nude jesus makes me uncomfortable, but it is not like that in everyones eyes. The statue is a work of art (although, I think the artist may be a little loopy, reading about his other works) and it deserves the respect of being put on display. No one was making you go see it, and now, because it offended some, many will not be able to see it.
Funny one, Walter. Good to see a little levity…After all, WHAT exactly is so offensive about a chocolate Jesus?! It’s chocolate! I like to think Jesus himself would’ve found this amusing, because creativity, sense of humor and humility are god-given gifts!
Teresa, I was not stereotyping, I was commenting on the knee-jerk reaction to anything regarding Jesus that does not fall within established dogmatic guidlines. Why are you so offended by the statue? I find it far less disturbing than celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ with pastel colored eggs and chocolate rabbits. Is it the nudity? The chocolate? Do you think Jesus didn’t have all the appropriate organs? Did you see The Passion of the Christ? If so, was it ok because it portrayed the abusing of Jesus in great detail, but he was ‘appropriately’ clothed throughout?
Sorry, Amanda. Didn’t mean to set up my soapbox in your playground, but I spent 3 years teaching at a Baptist college in Louisiana, and this sort of immediate dismissal of anything outside the orthodoxy gives me flashbacks.
Marius, not at all, this is a wonderful discussion.
Honestly, I more disgusted at our society.
I am disgusted that our society is abusing free speech.
Yes, we have the legal right to say practically anything (even hate speech) but does make it morally right. I believe the intention of this particular artist was to incite controversy.
Let’s not take words and speech so lightly.
Words can hurt others.
Words can divide.
Words can incite hate and violence.
Words can belittle.
Words can be abusive and
can stay with us the rest of our lives.
So words are be protected by the First Amendment but doesn’t stop them from having harmful effects. And when people simply dismiss this stuff as “art” and say “they have free speech,” I find it irritating. Shouldn’t artist be held responsible and accountable for their work and the public at large? Or are they beyond reproach? Now that we live in the digital age we must be more careful about the things we say because everything has a trail online. I’m not saying to walk on egg shells, I’m just saying to be responsible and not abuse our inherent freedoms.
I thoroughly agree that free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility, but you still haven’t explained why this statue offends you so. Inciting controversy is the main goal of many artists, but there is a vast difference between controversial and offensive.
Teresa, I find your words offensive. So I guess that means you should stop posting, huh?
Doesn’t matter why I do. It’s just the way I was raised.
Unless… the airing of different points of view has… value?
I agree we should not toss symbols around lightly. Unless, of course, that’s the point.
Using your freedom is not the same as abusing it. Even if it pisses someone off. Especially then.
Now put away the ruler and leave Marius’s knuckles alone.
As for the peanut butter guy: In a nutshell (sorry, couldn’t resist) he is saying that because we make so many jars of peanut butter, if evolution was real we should expect life to spontaneously occur in at least one or two of them a year.
This is the sort of “scientific thinking” that creationists want our children to embrace without question. It fits nicely with a White House that views all science it does not wish to accept as “theory” or opinion. (See global warming, meaningful education reform, species protection, sex ed and abstinence, drug abuse, etc.) Twenty years from now I hope enough reason has seeped back into public discourse so that little children will ask us how in heaven’s name this kind of crap ever saw the light of day.
I think Walter has the right idea: Pass the chocolate and peanut butter, and let’s party!
Marius,
I believe it is quite obvious why I find it offensive but I’ll explain.
To many Christians and I, we view the cross as a symbol of strength.
Perhaps, I am just speculating now, the artist wanted to show Christ as human and vulnerable. But at the cross I believe He died for our sins and that is only something the Son of God could of done and not a mere mortal. To humanize him in that way and in that specific moment is offensive.
Leron,
Why do find my words offensive? I believe I have tried to articulate myself in a tactful manner as to not offend anyone. Please tell me if this is not so. No ruler here. In fact, I believe I’ve been the one called intolerant.
It was a joke. I was trying to illustrate that anyone or anything can be ruled as offensive by someone. Should you be silenced, or pressured to stop posting, just because a yahoo like me doesn’t like it?
Leron,
If you read my first comment again, I did not specifically call for the exhibit to go down.
But I must note Leron the article from the AP that Amanda posted said that the gallery had received “a choir of complaining Catholics.” It also stated, “The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails about the exhibit.”
The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. California, that one of the ways to test whether something is obscene is whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
So if there was an outcry of dissent from the community I believe that should be taken into consideration.
I find it amusing that folks are fine with images of burning “living” people or political icons but a historical person that may or may not actually be the son of God is off limits. Come on… We know for sure that George Washington was real but would christians (yeah I “lower-cased” it) get all bent if they made a chocolate Washington? What’s the big deal? It’s as flattering as an action figure. Meaning… it means as much as your imagination will make of it. christians could do alot for their image and their religion if they showed a bit of tolerance for the world and its differences rather than using Jesus as some sort of platform to be intolerant. Hell… make a chocolate exhibit out of me… I’ll thank you for it.
By that standard, they shouldn’t have let those black kids into school in Alabama 40 years ago, because all those white folks were so upset by the idea.
The problem here is not that Chocolate Jesus appeals to someone’s prurient interests (might want to check the definition of that word, by the way). The problem is that there are always people who respond to repellent speech by trying to shut it down. That’s the difference between community standards and an angry mob.
I do note you never advocated shutting it down, just reacted with glee when it was. But think for a minute about what has happened here. A mob has silenced an idea it did not like. Sort of like the Romans tried to do with Jesus.
The answer to repellent speech is more speech, not less.
If Amanda decided she didn’t like your comments and pulled the plug on this board, what would that solve? Instead, she’s giving us a space to hash things out. That’s how we learn stuff. Maybe even evolve as people.
Teresa… only your faith tells you that the person that was called “Jesus” did or experienced all of that. Let’s be real… they weren’t great record keepers in those days… you show me where Jesus asks us not to make chocolate models of him or the cross or condones that you can persecute others in his name… then I’ll shut my big chocolate eatin trap
Teresa, I appreciate your attempt to clarify your distaste for the statue, and it is clear that you are genuinely puzzled as to why it should not be obvious, but I’m still not following how this display detracts from the holiness of the subject. If it were made of wood, or some other more traditional substance, would it then not be offensive? I am purposely avoiding the artist’s take on the statue because, as an artist of sorts, I think the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder. What the statue seems to me to be about is the foolishness of most of our Easter traditions, including chocolate mammals and colored eggs.
As for the outcry of dissent from the community , I have dealt with the Catholic League in the past. I once designed lights and was technical director for a production of Corpus Christi, by Terrance McNalley, which is a play of particular repugnance to the Catholic League, and let me tell you, they do not represent any sort of community consensus. They are very good at generating lots of mail, both paper and electronic, but they are a relatively small group.
Why do I pursue this so vehemently? Because the exhibiters caved and cancelled the show. I find censorship in any form abhorrent, and reminiscent of regimes that Americans have died defeating…or continuing to attempt to defeat…for more than 100 years.
Marius: That sucks, what happened.
I know it won’t entirely make up for it but: Wait until the day after Easter and then scoop up all the candy that went unsold at the drugstores. It’s usually on sale for half off or better. Eating well is the best revenge.
mmmmm…. an Easter candy Jesus. I’m willing to rent space to display the Easter candy Jesus here in Seattle. We’ll serve bread and wine and market them as tapas…
Tiny, little perfectly round tapas . . . that stick to the roof of your mouth.