"My Sweet Lord"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
You may do so, but an artist who pulls out some public showing might have some more respect for other cultures, or religions, and their wishes. We are free Europe, but we are also tolerant Europe.

Jesus himself may not have waged war against others, but his followers did so very extensively, so I think that counts for both sides.

I have to admit, I forgot about van Gogh. A single Muslim going crazy, yeah, that problably speaks for the whole religion.

One month ago a father shot his son because he wasn't good enough a Christian. Again, a single case, a crazy person, and now I should condemn the whole Christian religion?

As you may have read here, the artist and the hotel received death thtreats as well.
So tell me, when some offended Christians send e-mails with death threats, that's nothing, but when some Muslim do the same it just shows how dangerous their whole religion is?
 
Fascinating stuff. First those pesky women are supposed to be glad that they're not living in Saudi-Arabia, and now those pesky artists should be glad they're not being threatened by Muslims. People are really being held to the highest of standards here. :rolleyes:
 
I just saw the interview on Anderson Cooper.

Here's the thing -- what really should be put into question is the guy's intentions i.e. the state of his heart when he created it. The funny thing is, we're not in a place to know that (or judge it). Although, as it was stated earlier, he's a Christian and he said he created it as a religious experience and expression. As a Christian, I don't see what the big deal is.

The Catholic League guy who is in opposition to it was more offensive than the statue.
The artist said he created it out of his faith. The CL guy just spouted hate and judgement and acted like he didn't get an afternoon nap.

Plus, if you're not the artist, then art is about what you bring to it.
Other than that, it's a hunk of chocolate in the shape of some naked guy.
 
^ I agree with you about Bill Donohue, he seems to be a total loose cannon (although one with 500+ organizations at his beck and call for letter-writing, telephone and boycott campaigns unfortunately).
 
Vincent Vega said:
It has to do with some respect for other cultures or religions.

The Islamic religion asks not to portray Muhammad. So out of respect you shouldn't do it.

I've never heard that the Christian religion has generally a problem with protraying Jesus.

And the artist himself said that as a Christian it had to do with his faith.

There are fundamentalist Islamists, and also serious idiots.

You'll find the same with Christians.

I don't know about all these artists that got murdered over the last decades.

Probably you will come up with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, but this came from Ajatollah Chomeini, so its a bad example.

The Danish cartoonists are still alive. And I'm sure if they portrayed Jesus as a suicide bomber and such the outcry amongst Christians would be similar.
No it wouldn't I could portray Jesus being sodomised by Satan without having any serious concequences but do the same to Mohammed and violence could ensue.

Because some few Muslims have an iconoclastic theology that prohibits them to depict their madman does not mean that the rest of us are prohibited from doing so. I have a great deal of contempt for those who believe that their non-existent deities commands exceed others free speech rights.

Respect has to be earned, demands for censorship will earn only contempt. Which gets an outlet in mockery and a Mohammed sculpture of ham - now thats comedy :wink:
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
No it wouldn't I could portray Jesus being sodomised by Satan without having any serious concequences but do the same to Mohammed and violence could ensue.


But if we still had strict Christian theocracies, don't you think it would be the same? Christians aren't immune to this type of behavior. The Salem witch trials weren't that long ago in the whole scheme of things. The problem right now is that even Muslims in free countries, many are only one generation removed from strict theocratic rule.
 
A_Wanderer said:
No it wouldn't I could portray Jesus being sodomised by Satan without having any serious concequences but do the same to Mohammed and violence could ensue.

Because some few Muslims have an iconoclastic theology that prohibits them to depict their madman does not mean that the rest of us are prohibited from doing so. I have a great deal of contempt for those who believe that their non-existent deities commands exceed others free speech rights.

Respect has to be earned, demands for censorship will earn only contempt. Which gets an outlet in mockery and a Mohammed sculpture of ham - now thats comedy :wink:

Some years back there have been two bombings in the US at hospitals prviding abortion traced back to fundamental Christians that are militant against the US and against those sinners.

The artist in this case received death threats via email.

The Muslims, for example in the case of the Danish cartoonists, went on street to voice their protest, and some have had a very militant tone.

The Christians here did it via email which doesn't get so much media coverage, but still is very serious stuff.

"Jesus being sodomised by Satan" similarly as here approached as a publice showing for sure wouldn't let you get away with it without an outcry, and again death threats.

Yo use the word "censorship" and I'm sure everything that is in a way a restriction for you is a censorship, or a never justified restriction of your high valued freedom.

I was rather speaking of a respect of other religions and cultures and their wants. Muslims don't want to have Mohammed pictured, and as a tolerant person one should accept this wish.

Christians don't generally say you shouldn't picture Christ, but as you can see here many are objected to certain kinds of picturing Jesus. And the artist created this chocolate jesus out of an inspiration he had from his faith.
That, for example is one major difference. A Christian making a Jesus.

A Muslim making a Mohammed might get a different response than a Christian making a Mohammed, and a Muslim making a Jesus would probably draw much more anger upon himself than a Christian.

What should Muslims do to gain our respect (there are more than 600 million)?
And do have Christians already your respect?

I'm also very much against any religion telling me how I have to live, and no one, neither Christian nor Muslim can tell me what are my rights, or that I'm a sinner and with the devil, especially since there is no God and no Devil for me.
But I'm trying to practice tolerance as much as possible. I admit, I sometimes fail, but who doesn't? Still, I respect their wishes.

I know their are militant Muslims that have spread all over the world, and are a danger for our society. Still I don't think that justifies and provocation from ours, or should mean that there is no need to respect the overall wishes and beliefs of Muslims.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


But if we still had strict Christian theocracies, don't you think it would be the same? Christians aren't immune to this type of behavior. The Salem witch trials weren't that long ago in the whole scheme of things. The problem right now is that even Muslims in free countries, many are only one generation removed from strict theocratic rule.
Of course we would, the roundheads wouldn't take kindly to a graphical depiction of their lord.
 
Vincent Vega said:


Some years back there have been two bombings in the US at hospitals prviding abortion traced back to fundamental Christians that are militant against the US and against those sinners.

The artist in this case received death threats via email.

The Muslims, for example in the case of the Danish cartoonists, went on street to voice their protest, and some have had a very militant tone.

The Christians here did it via email which doesn't get so much media coverage, but still is very serious stuff.

"Jesus being sodomised by Satan" similarly as here approached as a publice showing for sure wouldn't let you get away with it without an outcry, and again death threats.

Yo use the word "censorship" and I'm sure everything that is in a way a restriction for you is a censorship, or a never justified restriction of your high valued freedom.

I was rather speaking of a respect of other religions and cultures and their wants. Muslims don't want to have Mohammed pictured, and as a tolerant person one should accept this wish.

Christians don't generally say you shouldn't picture Christ, but as you can see here many are objected to certain kinds of picturing Jesus. And the artist created this chocolate jesus out of an inspiration he had from his faith.
That, for example is one major difference. A Christian making a Jesus.

A Muslim making a Mohammed might get a different response than a Christian making a Mohammed, and a Muslim making a Jesus would probably draw much more anger upon himself than a Christian.

What should Muslims do to gain our respect (there are more than 600 million)?
And do have Christians already your respect?

I'm also very much against any religion telling me how I have to live, and no one, neither Christian nor Muslim can tell me what are my rights, or that I'm a sinner and with the devil, especially since there is no God and no Devil for me.
But I'm trying to practice tolerance as much as possible. I admit, I sometimes fail, but who doesn't? Still, I respect their wishes.

I know their are militant Muslims that have spread all over the world, and are a danger for our society. Still I don't think that justifies and provocation from ours, or should mean that there is no need to respect the overall wishes and beliefs of Muslims.
No religion has my respect, it is willfull ignorance that latches on to fantasy because people are unwilling to live in a world without answers that is (barring any existential discoveries) meaningless. Im just intolerant to violent morons and the peaceful morons who don't have a problem with those ones helping them out.

The argument of equivalence is flawed because Islam unlike contempary Christianity hasn't been castrated by many years of secular freedoms. When somebody says tolerance I take it to be respecting somebodies rights, not giving their backwards views a modicum of actual respect merely their right to practice them. When people demand that the rest must submit to their beliefs through violence of the implicit threat of violence (such as that from the Mohammed cartoons) then it demands more violation of those beliefs. The day that the Islamic world doesn't really react to the blaspheming of their madman is real coexistance.

As far as what constitutes censorship I think that the use of force either government or knife and gun wielding believer to coerce a party from withdrawing their piece are both examples of it. I would loath a day when on paper we say we have free speech but in fact nobody is willing to speak out from fear (a condition that has continuously emerged through human history).
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
No religion has my respect, it is willfull ignorance that latches on to fantasy because people are unwilling to live in a world without answers that is (barring any existential discoveries) meaningless.



do you have respect for those who choose to believe?
 
I have no respect for people that use violence to pursue their will, or their religion.

But I don't, or at least try not to forget about the millions of people behind this religion living peacefully and respecting other people's freedom. And hence, I respect their wishes, as I want them to respect my wishes.

You are using the same superior talking some conservative Christians or Muslims use. They say that through their belief they are better than non-believers or members of other denominations.

You just tell all religious people that they are stupid and that you, who has overcome the belief in a deity, are somehow better, or know more then them.

I think it's hard to gain any respect from anybody by using such a derogative talk. But I see how it influences your decision to just not care about what other people please.
 
Irvine511 said:




do you have respect for those who choose to believe?
I try to judge people on their merits; but I don't respect their beliefs as much as I respect their right to believe.
 
Vincent Vega said:
I have no respect for people that use violence to pursue their will, or their religion.

But I don't, or at least try not to forget about the millions of people behind this religion living peacefully and respecting other people's freedom. And hence, I respect their wishes, as I want them to respect my wishes.

You are using the same superior talking some conservative Christians or Muslims use. They say that through their belief they are better than non-believers or members of other denominations.

You just tell all religious people that they are stupid and that you, who has overcome the belief in a deity, are somehow better, or know more then them.

I think it's hard to gain any respect from anybody by using such a derogative talk. But I see how it influences your decision to just not care about what other people please.
Im not saying that believers are by definition stupid, the most intelligent people can intelligently justify any fallacy, im not making claim to be a better person or that a lack of belief makes one a better person; I respect their right to believe, but I will not abide the religious intollerance forcing the hand of others. Freedom needs to be defended and keeping the public arena open from MoToons to Piss Christ does that.

When we take respect and tolerance as implicit boundaries of what we cannot say eventually those boundaries will be expected and all will suffer as a result. I want Muslims to have the same expectations of society as Christians and most all other believers - that their faith is personally important but they can't expect the rest of us (be it individuals, the media and education system) to respect that. I certainly wouldn't expect any Muslim to consider me - an atheist - to be anything short of deserving hell.

And one more important point; the person that gets offended is usually the one that deserves to reevalute their views, to have their assumptions challenged; what I would consider a moderate believer shouldn't have a problem with others blasphemy, those that do are identified by their reactions.
 
Last edited:
I remember when Theo van Gogh was killed. It was a horrible thing to do, but we're only talking about one Muslim fanatic here. It shouldn't be used to define an entire religion with over one billlion followers.
 
U2Bama said:


Tolerant of what? Artistic expression?

The chocolate Jesus looks like a burnt cadaver to me.

~U2Alabama

That sentence was totally apart from the chocolate jesus, and totally in context with my response to A_Wanderer.
 
Oh I know; I was speaking in reference to your dialogue with A_Wanderer.

The chocolate Jesus comment was merely my critique of the artwork.

~U2Alabama
 
OK :)

I'm sure here in Europe the artist would cause similar outrage by some, and others would come and defend it as artistic freedom, which is valued very high with some.

I think there are better things you can do with chocolate. :)
 
Vincent Vega said:
OK :)

I'm sure here in Europe the artist would cause similar outrage by some, and others would come and defend it as artistic freedom, which is valued very high with some.

I think there are better things you can do with chocolate. :)

I think it's artistic freedom. I see nothing wrong with a chocolate Jesus. As a Catholic, I think some of my co-religionists were completely off with this case.
 
Bill Donohue once again reminds all those sniveling, ingrate artistes out there who really holds the copyright to the image of Christ crucified:

Washington Post, Dec. 1
Officials at the National Portrait Gallery on Tuesday removed a work of video art depicting Christ with ants crawling over him after complaints from a Catholic organization and members of Congress. The four-minute video, created by the late artist David Wojnarowicz, had been on exhibit since Oct. 30 as part of a show on sexual difference in American portraiture. The piece was called "hate speech" by Catholic League president William Donohue and a misuse of taxpayer money by a spokesman for Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the presumptive incoming House speaker.

...An 11-second portion of the video shows a small crucifix covered with ants. The video is included in the exhibit, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." ...Wojnarowicz, an artist in New York's East Village scene of the 1980s, was 37 when he died of AIDS in 1992.

...The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.

..."The calls and e-mails are suggesting that this was deliberately offensive on the part of the Smithsonian and we had it up during the Christmas holidays to be deliberately sacrilegious," [Smithsonian director Martin] Sullivan said.

...The Catholic League objected to the "homoerotic images" and said the exhibition offended Christians. Donohue, in an interview Tuesday after the video was removed, said he had watched it on YouTube and that "the material is vile." He called on the House and Senate appropriations committees to reconsider future funding for the Smithsonian. "My immediate concern has been relieved. But this is hate speech," Donohue said. "It is designed to insult. This is a sad commentary on the judgment of the Smithsonian."
In an interview with the Washington Post, Donohue also compared Wojnarowicz's film to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.

(Incidentally, Wojnarowicz was the creator of the 'Buffalo' image used on the cover of U2's "One.")

Andrew Sullivan responds: (Wojnarowicz's video included)
I got to see the extraordinary and powerful exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery, Hide/Seek, over a week ago. It's impressive, subtle and involving. It is about American portraiture's navigation of sexual difference and homosexuality in the twentieth century. From Paul Cadmus and Thomas Eakins to Annie Leibovitz and Andy Warhol, it's a fascinating glimpse into how gay artists managed to be honest in their work, even while being constrained by society's strictures of what could or could not be presented in public. So much of it gains strength from its codedness; in many of the portraits, it takes a while to see what is really going on. And yet there are also pieces of quite shocking frankness and beauty.

...For me, the portraits from the era of AIDS, of mass death in the teeth of great hostility, fear and discrimination, struck home most powerfully. That is when I came of age as a homosexual man, and it is what necessarily soldered my heart to those of my brothers and sisters. It was an anguished and angry time, and few portrayed that as graphically as David Wojnarovicz. His self-portrait--his gaunt, dying face half buried in dust--brings back the cold, deathly panic of the time. And his 30 minute video, "A Fire In My Belly," is a stream of visual consciousness about his dying, his grief at his friends' dying, his fear and his anger.

And it is this that has now been withdrawn from the exhibit because the Catholic League's blowhard, Bill Donohue, called the video--absurdly--something "designed to insult and inflict injury and assault the sensibilities of Christians," and John Boehner jumped when pulled by Donohue's string.

Well, I'm a Christian and far from feeling insulted or injured or assaulted, I saw something as raw as it was orthodox. The whole video incorporates the image of Jesus as a dying, tortured man like those with AIDS: "unclean" as the audio shrieks over the image, rejected, covered by insects. It splices that image with grotesque attempts to sew a loaf of bread back together, to sew a human being's lips back together, along with desperate images of fire and decay. We are looking at the hysterical images of a dying man suddenly surrounded by the dying, overcome by the attempt to sew life back together. To see a rejected Jesus left on the cross and on the ground to be covered by ants, is, in this context, clearly neither offensive nor heresy; it's orthodoxy, for Pete's sake, with the death of Jesus one of countless images of suffering and isolation.

As Blake Gopnik notes:

The irony is that Wojnarowicz's reading of his piece puts it smack in the middle of the great tradition of using images of Christ to speak about the suffering of all mankind. There is a long, respectable history of showing hideously grisly images of Jesus--17th-century sculptures in the National Gallery's recent show of Spanish sacred art could not have been more gory or distressing--and Wojnarowicz's video is nothing more than a relatively tepid reworking of that imagery, in modern terms.​

This is so obvious in context that one simply wonders what on earth the fuss could be about. Maybe what is truly offensive to men like Donohue is the notion that gay men might actually seek refuge in Jesus' similar experience of marginalized, stigmatized agony. Since the message cannot be objectionable--Jesus shares in our suffering and exemplifies it--maybe it is merely the association with gay men that appals. For the powerful and privileged like Donohue, Jesus belongs in the corridors of power and respectability, among the mainstream, depictions of him restricted to images of pristine, prissy reverence rather than the alienated, despairing, naked agony he actually suffered. The idea that Jesus died for homosexuals is insulting to Donohue; but it is what the church teaches and what Jesus lived. Which is why this reflexive, culture war spat is so depressing, so sad, so illustrative of how the alleged defenders of Christianity do not understand it at all. And how even after all these years, these young men, tens of thousands of whom died in agony or alone, are still despised, ignored and feared by men like Donohue and Boehner. ...
 
I've always liked Andrew Sullivan. I enjoy hearing his thoughts on political issues-that essay response was fantastic :up:.

..."The calls and e-mails are suggesting that this was deliberately offensive on the part of the Smithsonian and we had it up during the Christmas holidays to be deliberately sacrilegious," [Smithsonian director Martin] Sullivan said.

I love how those who called and e-mailed can make assumptions like that. They could be right, it could've been a timed thing...or, and here's a thought, it could've just been yet another new piece to add to the gallery of art work. Plenty of Jesus-themed art, "offensive" or not, has been made at all times of the year, this is just the latest piece. But let's go ahead and keep with the "They're making fun of us!" attitude.

...The Catholic League objected to the "homoerotic images" and said the exhibition offended Christians.

But that big ol' scandal with priests molesting children going on, that's totally fine to sweep under the rug and act as though it doesn't exist, right? That's not worth getting this up in arms over, nah, we'll just make a big fuss over a piece of artwork instead. A piece of artwork that you don't have to even go see if you don't want to!

Also, Boehner, stay out of this. Don't you have an economy to go start fixing?

Angela
 
Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Make everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred

~Bob Dylan
 
Back
Top Bottom