Peruse a few lefty websites (try here, here, and here for starters), and you can see what they think of the Chocolate Jesus controversy: What's the big deal?
Instead of realizing that the depiction of Christ in this form (sans cross and loincloth) could be seen as disrespectful of the Deity and offensive to some Christians, they want to compare this monstrosity to Michaelangelo and focus on a handful of overly zealous people who called in death threats.
Let's take these arguments in order.
First of all, a naked chocolate Jesus doesn't compare to Michaelangelo's depictions of religious figures for at least a couple of reasons. For one thing, Michaelangeo's depictions were done in ways that were considered respectful of Christianity at the time. Anatomically correct figures in Renaissance depictions of religious figures were designed to show the perfection of God. There's been absolutely no claim to date that the sculptor of the Chocolate Jesus depicted Christ without a loincloth as a way of portraying his perfection. And as for discussing the Sistine Chapel, it's fairly apparent to anyone who's actually seen (or seen pictures) of the paintings in question that such depictions were designed to enhance the standing of Christianity, not put it, at best, in a very weird light and, at worst, hold it up for ridicule and derision.
The second point I'm seeing everywhere in the moonbatosphere is about a quote from William Donohue, head of the most dreaded Catholic League, to Cosmo Cavallaro on Anderson Cooper.
DONAHUE: Oh, no, let me tell you something. You're — you're lucky I'm not as mean, because you might lose more than your head.
COOPER: Cosimo, did you want people to eat this? Was that part of this?
C. CAVALLARO: No.
Did you hear what this gentleman is saying, that I would lose my head?
The lefties have interpreted this tiny quote pulled out of context to mean Donohue wants Cavallaro beheaded, when, in fact, it's fairly obvious that he is talking about the Danish Mohammed cartoon scandal, in which thousands of Muslims rioted in the streets around the world and brave editors were punished for publishing the cartoons. The number of death threats involved was extreme, not a few nutballs. Several of the Danish journalists involved had to go into hiding because of the death threats, and security had to be beefed up to protect the newspaper itself from radical Muslims.
Does any of that sound like what Donohue (or even the nut cases who called the hotel) did to Cavallaro? Has he gone into hiding? Is he fearful of his life? I think not.
No, instead, Cavallaro and the hotel that was dumb enough to contract with this man are faced with good ol' American free speech. You know, that free speech that lefties love when it is burning G.I. effigies or calling George Bush worse than Hitler (numerous sites; just Google it for yourself).
What this does show is how little respect the Left has for the idea of protest and free speech when the subject is important to conservatives. If religion gets bashed in a movie, on TV, in popular culture, then Christians should just "not look at it," but certainly not protest it. If, on the other hand, someone wants to burn a dummy of an American soldier, that's just political protest.
I'm just not sure how one can tie one's brains into enough knots to agree with that thinking.
Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.
|