Kathianne
03-30-2007, 05:49 PM
Hate her? Too bad, the question is more than relevant:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007208.htm
How would the MSM cover "Chocolate Mohammed" at Ramadan?
By Michelle Malkin · March 30, 2007 01:07 PM
How would the MSM cover an artist exhibition of a "Chocolate Mohammed" timed to coincide with Ramadan?
They wouldn't.
But find an artist to mock Jesus at Easter with a chocolate sculpture...
chocolatejesus.jpg
...and you'll get wall-to-wall coverage. "Chocolate Jesus" is on Fox, MSNBC, and ABC. And CNN. And all over the web.
No pixelation. No withholding the photos in the name of respect for Christianity. No taboos.
Where's the MSM's concern for avoiding deliberately provocative religious insults now?
Remember?
"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam."
"CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."
And remember:
"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste." ...
At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.
The Boston Globe, while acknowledging the right of newspapers to print material that may offend, argues that "newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
In the land of media dhimmitude, tolerance is a one-way street.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6039/chocolatejesusqj2.jpg
I posted this on another messageboard, but thought some that are here exclusively might find the links interesting.
I know this is wrong, but it's not only chocolate, but the depiction that is so wrong:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1592/chocolatejesuslgpu8.jpg
I found that pic here:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/chocolatejesus032807
along with the hotel:
Just in time for Easter, the high-calorie Heavenly Father will exhibit on April 1st at The Lab gallery at the Roger Smith Hotel in New York.
It seems now that the 'art exhibit' has been cancelled:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kuo/that-chocolate-jesus_b_44649.html
That Chocolate Jesus (1 comments )
The public won't see that "anatomically correct sculpture" of a fully naked chocolate Jesus with arms stretched wide as if on a cross. That's a shame.
I am generally pretty laid back about such things - artists should be able to do whatever it is that artists want to do. I may object, I may be horrified, but art and art and art should be as free as art can be.
As such, let this "artist" do what he wants.
If art is free to express itself, however, so to the public is free to declare judgment. And so with this piece of "art" I can freely say that I think it is absurd... but also that in some ways it is actually the perfect piece of art for holy week.
Why? Because it reminds all of those who follow Jesus of how he was mocked and ridiculed, how he was scorned and beaten, how he was humiliated... and all because of his love for us. Those are good things for his followers to remember.
Jesus' story isn't nice, it isn't neat, it isn't comfortable. It is the opposite of all of those things. In so many ways those of us who say we follow Jesus actually want a sort of "chocolate Jesus" of our own - one that is sweet, one that demands little from us, one that we can mold into our forms - perhaps politically conservative, perhaps liberal, maybe happy with just a few of our dollars given to the poor every now and again, perhaps content with those who simply say they love him and then lead lives little different from anyone else.
It is easy for some religious leaders to decry a piece of art and say - as some have (apparently with a straight face) - it is "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." (I suppose that genocide in Darfur is merely an "affront" to Christian sensibilities?) But instead of getting all amped up over this "art," Christians should be spending time facing the real and very challenging Jesus found in the Gospels and encouraging others to do the same. I know that is what I need to do. Yeah, right.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007208.htm
How would the MSM cover "Chocolate Mohammed" at Ramadan?
By Michelle Malkin · March 30, 2007 01:07 PM
How would the MSM cover an artist exhibition of a "Chocolate Mohammed" timed to coincide with Ramadan?
They wouldn't.
But find an artist to mock Jesus at Easter with a chocolate sculpture...
chocolatejesus.jpg
...and you'll get wall-to-wall coverage. "Chocolate Jesus" is on Fox, MSNBC, and ABC. And CNN. And all over the web.
No pixelation. No withholding the photos in the name of respect for Christianity. No taboos.
Where's the MSM's concern for avoiding deliberately provocative religious insults now?
Remember?
"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam."
"CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."
And remember:
"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste." ...
At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.
The Boston Globe, while acknowledging the right of newspapers to print material that may offend, argues that "newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
In the land of media dhimmitude, tolerance is a one-way street.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6039/chocolatejesusqj2.jpg
I posted this on another messageboard, but thought some that are here exclusively might find the links interesting.
I know this is wrong, but it's not only chocolate, but the depiction that is so wrong:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1592/chocolatejesuslgpu8.jpg
I found that pic here:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/chocolatejesus032807
along with the hotel:
Just in time for Easter, the high-calorie Heavenly Father will exhibit on April 1st at The Lab gallery at the Roger Smith Hotel in New York.
It seems now that the 'art exhibit' has been cancelled:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kuo/that-chocolate-jesus_b_44649.html
That Chocolate Jesus (1 comments )
The public won't see that "anatomically correct sculpture" of a fully naked chocolate Jesus with arms stretched wide as if on a cross. That's a shame.
I am generally pretty laid back about such things - artists should be able to do whatever it is that artists want to do. I may object, I may be horrified, but art and art and art should be as free as art can be.
As such, let this "artist" do what he wants.
If art is free to express itself, however, so to the public is free to declare judgment. And so with this piece of "art" I can freely say that I think it is absurd... but also that in some ways it is actually the perfect piece of art for holy week.
Why? Because it reminds all of those who follow Jesus of how he was mocked and ridiculed, how he was scorned and beaten, how he was humiliated... and all because of his love for us. Those are good things for his followers to remember.
Jesus' story isn't nice, it isn't neat, it isn't comfortable. It is the opposite of all of those things. In so many ways those of us who say we follow Jesus actually want a sort of "chocolate Jesus" of our own - one that is sweet, one that demands little from us, one that we can mold into our forms - perhaps politically conservative, perhaps liberal, maybe happy with just a few of our dollars given to the poor every now and again, perhaps content with those who simply say they love him and then lead lives little different from anyone else.
It is easy for some religious leaders to decry a piece of art and say - as some have (apparently with a straight face) - it is "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever." (I suppose that genocide in Darfur is merely an "affront" to Christian sensibilities?) But instead of getting all amped up over this "art," Christians should be spending time facing the real and very challenging Jesus found in the Gospels and encouraging others to do the same. I know that is what I need to do. Yeah, right.