NEW YORK, March 30, 2007

Chocolate Jesus Bites The Dust

New York Gallery Cancels "My Sweet Lord" Show Amid Flood Of Protest

  • Photo

    "My Sweet Lord," a sculpture of Jesus made from milk chocolate by Cosimo Cavallaro, is seen here at the Ranieriís Sculpture Casting studio in New York, March 29, 2007.  (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

  • Interactive Eye on Religion

    Find out more about the beliefs, practices and history of some of the world's major religions.

(AP)  A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled Friday amid a choir of complaining Catholics that included Cardinal Edward Egan.

The "My Sweet Lord" display was shut down by the hotel that houses the Lab Gallery in midtown Manhattan, said Matt Semler, the gallery's creative director. Semler said he submitted his resignation after officials at the Roger Smith Hotel shut down the show.

The six-foot sculpture was the victim of "a strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show, seen what we're doing," Semler said. "They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions."

But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as "a sickening display." Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."

The hotel and the gallery were overrun Thursday with angry phone calls and e-mails about the exhibit. Semler said the calls included death threats over the work of artist Cosimo Cavallaro, who was described as disappointed by the decision to cancel the display.

"In this situation, the hotel couldn't continue to be supportive because of a fear for their own safety," Semler said.

The sculpture was to debut Monday evening, the day after Palm Sunday and just four days before Roman Catholics mark the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday. The final day of the exhibit was planned for Easter Sunday.

The artwork was created from more than 200 pounds of milk chocolate, and features Christ with his arms outstretched as if on an invisible cross. Unlike the typical religious portrayal of Christ, the Cavallaro creation does not include a loincloth.

Cavallaro is best known for his quirky work with food as art: Past efforts include repainting a Manhattan hotel room in melted mozzarella, spraying five tons of pepper jack cheese on a Wyoming home, and festooning a four-poster bed with 312 pounds of processed ham.


© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Video and Galleries from Entertainment

Add a Comment See all 76 Comments
by avengersgirl March 30, 2007 3:26 PM PDT
If it'd been done out of white chocolate, and if he hadn't been nude...would there have been such anger, I wonder?

Interesting that there were death threats against the artist. I thought that kind of over-reaction was left to Muslims.

Having said that, I hope this artist isn't supported by public funds. Most of his work seems to be merely a waste of food.
Reply to this comment
by gunownerdan March 30, 2007 3:37 PM PDT
Religious nuts just can't seem to take a joke.
Reply to this comment
by beam_me_up1 March 30, 2007 3:53 PM PDT
"sickening display", hmm...
Seems like Catholic priest violating children tops that.
Reply to this comment
by thompstone-2009 March 30, 2007 3:57 PM PDT
Interesting point re white chocolate. No mention of what makes the sculpture so revolting.
Reply to this comment
by betterbigger March 30, 2007 4:00 PM PDT
death threats?? Proving that Christians are just as violent as Muslims. It's sickening to me that the same people were all titillated over a movie depicting two solid hours of the bloodiest, most brutal violent acts against their God, (Passion of the Christ) but seeing that same god's pen*s is horrible to them. So violence = wonderful, but God-given anatomy = horrible. Got it. Great values, folks.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 4:02 PM PDT
The Catholics could purchase this sculpture, and use it as a fund-raising tool.

They could raise a lot of money towrds settling their sexual preditor lawsuits, if they auctioned off an opportunity for their members to soddomize this statue.
Reply to this comment
by binkey3 March 30, 2007 4:02 PM PDT
Do the extreme Christian Right not understand that Jesus was not wearing a loincloth when He was Crucified? It was part of the humiliation that the Romans wanted Him to go through.

I haven't really got an opion on this yet. It is some what tasteless (no pun intended) yet at the same time it is art. But, everyone would be upset if it was art from the Jewish religon. It would not be allowed by anyone.

I just want to know why it is okay to destory the Christian religon and no other religon.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 4:06 PM PDT
This statue brings a whole new meaning to the journey along the Hershey Highway, that leaders of the Catholic church are traveling.
Reply to this comment
by zoltaric March 30, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
The threats were from muslims. Jesus was a muslim prophet.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 4:22 PM PDT
This story has given me an even better idea for a sculpture- Ex-Lax Jesus!!!
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 4:30 PM PDT
There is another CBS story on the main page entitled, "Constipation Drug Linked With Heart Risks".

Chcolate Ex-Lax Jesus could provide relief, without the heart attack risks!
Reply to this comment
by passerby2 March 30, 2007 4:37 PM PDT
maybe if the statue was not so anatomically correct, he looked too manly and not boyish enough. if they left out the pubi*c hair, he would look more prepubescent. it would better suit the churches agenda allowing them to have fantasies of sodomizing the statue themselves.
Reply to this comment
by zootallures2 March 30, 2007 4:40 PM PDT
Don't play with your food.
Reply to this comment
by passerby2 March 30, 2007 4:46 PM PDT
And christians say only muslims are capable of being extremists. I say all you religious nutjobs are crazy.
Reply to this comment
by DocD--2008 March 30, 2007 4:54 PM PDT
Anyone who makes a threat of violence or death needs to examine their own lives, thoughts and actions as they are as far from God as they can be.
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 5:00 PM PDT
How is a piece of chocolate destroying the Christian religion? Come on now! It's a bit of freedom of speech, just like the Danish cartoons of Mohammed (actually far less offensive than those cartoons - Jesus is not being painted as a terrorist here).

Everyone is offended by some speech - and everyone has different beliefs. They've got the freedom to put up a chocolate Jesus, you've got the freedom to hate it, say so, boycott the hotel if you like. But death threats - that's illegal and wrong.

What's funny is that the artist may be making a fairly valid, and pro-christian statement here. Naked - according to someone above, that was the reality of how it happened - one more injury done by the romans in addition to the nails. Chocolate - Easter is becoming more and more secular, with chocolate bunnies replacing Jesus. It's a bit of a sarcastic statement, possibly, about what will happen next, as Easter becomes just a holiday about candy for kids.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 5:07 PM PDT
death threats?? Proving that Christians are just as violent as Muslims. It's sickening to me that the same people were all titillated over a movie depicting two solid hours of the bloodiest, most brutal violent acts against their God, (Passion of the Christ) but seeing that same god's pen*s is horrible to them. So violence = wonderful, but God-given anatomy = horrible. Got it. Great values, folks.

The Passion of the Christ was the most accurate depiction of what actually happened to Jesus. Sickening??? Yes. Disturbing? You betcha. Makes you realize even more how much He went through to save all of us. That has nothing to do with this. Saying that what happened to Jesus is equal to showing his *** is stupid. It is not his nakedness that is the problem. It the crude way in which the depict a sacred symbol and turn it into a Hershey bar free for all. They made light of a something important to all Christians and they did it during the most important week of the Christian faith. Had they released this at another time of the year, it might have been overlooked more. But why choose to make light of a critical time in the Christian faith? It was in bad taste and it was of even worse timing. That is the issue, not his ***.
Reply to this comment
by passerby2 March 30, 2007 5:12 PM PDT
what easter is about jesus? all this time i thought it was about the easter bunny coming to give us chocolate easter eggs. The easter bunny told me god isn't real. He also told me to build him a temple, worship him, and he'll bring me chocolate easter eggs every year.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 5:14 PM PDT
SusanHelit,

Re: "How is a piece of chocolate destroying the Christian religion?"

That comment is quite humorous. Bravo.
Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 March 30, 2007 5:14 PM PDT
Now that looks more like Michael Craig than Jesus...

But I digress. Having seen a different pic of Choco J(tm), I had this to say:

During World War II, chocolate was so rare it was used as currency.

Now we make idols out of it. Who'll be idolized in chocolate next, that American Idol guy Sanjaya?

What a senseless waste. For either case.

Even His hair is way too short compared to the real Jesus.

At least the skin color tone is nearly right, I'll grant them that much...

Choco Jesus doesn't look naked; it looked like a loincloth-like shape was chiseled out of the big-arse hershey bar too.

Reply to this comment
by hypnotoad72 March 30, 2007 5:18 PM PDT
**GAH!!** Where am I today; it's Daniel Craig! (Who's Michael Craig?!)

Reply to this comment
by passerby2 March 30, 2007 5:21 PM PDT
The Passion of the Christ was the most accurate depiction of what actually happened to Jesus.
Posted by me4prezz at 05:07 PM : Mar 30, 2007

Oh come on man, most accurate depiction???What are you comparing it to, do you have actual footage of what happened. This event supposedly took place 2 thousand years ago. I doubt you can barely remember what you did last week, much less rely on hearsay of a few cult leaders of an event 2000 years old. Even in this age of technological advances, information is being mishandled and altered to suit peoples ambitious needs, how can you trust stories passed along by word of mouth.
Reply to this comment
by read-a-book March 30, 2007 5:31 PM PDT
Free speech is important. Freedom of artistic expression is important. But human rights & respect for diversity are also important. I stop people in the street for saying %u201Choly cow%u201D because it is offensive to my Hindu friends. I stop people from saying xenophobic and disrespectful things about Islam because it offends my Muslim friends. For the same reason I must protest the display of a chocolate %u201Csweet%u201D Christ during Easter. We can engage in artistic expression without mocking that which is sacred to others. Profanity or mockery of that which others deeply revere isn%u2019t art; in fact, it represents the very absence of creativity.

It is culture war posing as art.

A commitment to diversity includes tolerance towards all belief systems -- even those in the majority where we happen to live.

I%u2019m disappointed in Lab Gallery. I%u2019m disappointed in the Roger Smith hotel. And I%u2019m disappointed in the "art director's" lack of judgment and lack of respect for diverse religious tradition. Times may change, but even-handed respect and courtesy towards diverse beliefs of all kinds will never go out of fashion.
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 5:43 PM PDT
Yeah, right. No "Holy Cow" because it might offend Hindus, no dressing up as a witch because you might offend Wiccans, no gay marriage because it offends Christians, no advertisments for hamburgers because it might offend vegetarians, no political cartoons featuring Mohammed because it might offend muslims - I don't think so.

Let's just agree that we're all going to be offended here and there, and relax about it already! Unless someone is forcing you to take part in their religion, just relax, and exercise your own freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the very important freedom of where I spend my money and what I watch, to express what offends you.
Reply to this comment
by passerby2 March 30, 2007 5:44 PM PDT
Free speech is important. Freedom of artistic expression is important. But human rights & respect for diversity are also important. I stop people in the street for saying %u201Choly cow%u201D because it is offensive to my Hindu friends. I stop people from saying xenophobic and disrespectful things about Islam because it offends my Muslim friends. For the same reason I must protest the display of a chocolate %u201Csweet%u201D Christ during Easter. We can engage in artistic expression without mocking that which is sacred to others. Profanity or mockery of that which others deeply revere isn%u2019t art; in fact, it represents the very absence of creativity.
Posted by read-a-book at 05:31 PM : Mar 30, 2007
+ report abuse


Do you even know what freedom of speech is? You stop people from saying holy cow because it offends someone? What if saying "hello" was offensive to some people? you would stop them too? You sound more like a communist. Christians are able to hold signs telling homosexuals to go to hell, but when some puts jesus in chocolate they get offended. what gives them the right to offend others but not be offended themselves. biigest hypocrites I've ever seen. It's okay for them to trample all over everyone else's beliefs, but when it's their beliefs that are being trampled on they start crying and handing out death threats.
Reply to this comment
by lucyfeo March 30, 2007 5:45 PM PDT
I am Catholic and can say there are fanatics in every group, even among atheists and those who have no particular beliefs at all,like those commenting so passionately here. I am not sure why the Cardinal finds this art so distasteful...I would think the artist is the only one who can answer for his intention for creating.....it. I think many times artists are just trying to be edgy to gain attention so they can keep their grant status and to keep interest in their work. I love Jesus with all my heart, and I could not sit by and allow someone to mock Him and what He did for me, I would fight to the bitter end. His death has been portrayed in a violent way, because His death was violent....it is not mocking Him to portray what historically may have happened. I can only say that any offended Catholics have to speak out if they feel the Glory that belongs to God is not being respected and maintained. How could they not care, if they love him. Death threats/violence is a sad reflection of all societies.
Reply to this comment
by retmilspouse March 30, 2007 5:49 PM PDT
Some of these comments are pure evil. This is sheer proof that there is the devil lurking inside of humans on this earth. To make a joke out of this is so wrong on all levels. And for the people who made death threats against the hotel and the art gallery staff they are not true Christians, just a bunch of nut jobs. But I will say that the timing of the display and its outcome have given the gallery staff the media coverage that it was looking for. I will pray for them as well as all of you who have made such a mockery of this event.
Reply to this comment
by feelfree1 March 30, 2007 6:06 PM PDT
retmilspouse,

Re: "Some of these comments are pure evil."

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

May he (she) who is without sin, cast the first stone.

What does your church have to say about the illegal war and mass-murder/torture crusade against Iraq?
Reply to this comment
by dumbfounded5 March 30, 2007 6:14 PM PDT
At least they got his color correct. Not shay-whitey with blue eyes...
Reply to this comment
by puzzler125 March 30, 2007 6:29 PM PDT
Frankly I think it was rather a waste of 200 pounds of good chocolate! To each his or her own and I'm not easily offended.
Reply to this comment
by king77shaw March 30, 2007 6:39 PM PDT
strange - it seems as if a chocolate Christ is more offensive than hundreds of pedophile priests ... hmmm, if they had only acted on that issue with the same vigor ...
Reply to this comment
by thenamesdave March 30, 2007 7:32 PM PDT
Yes, the chocolate Jesus is beyond tacky, but it is still art. And the sanctimonious whiners who can't understand that are what is wrong with America.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 7:37 PM PDT
passerby2:

How do you know it didn't happen? Research it and science is starting to prove stories of the bible more and more each and every day. Do you have traditions or stories that are passed on from generation to generation? I trust it and believe in it because that is what faith is. A belief in something unseen and hard to define or even undefinable, but something tangible in the hearts of those who believe. I know it happened because I have faith in the words of the bible. If you don't, that is your choice. But, do not trample on my belief because you choose not to.

As for passerby2, it isn't just "christians" who are opposed to homosexuality, who are opposed to abortion or what ever topic of debate you choose. That would be people-of all religions, faiths and walks of life. Also, just because we are Christians, does not imply that we are all of the same religion. There are hundreds of religions out there, do not confuse them and punish all for the statements and actions of a few. Furthermore, it was not me or anyone I know or anyone in my area who made the death threats. Again, do not punish the mass for the actions and words of a few.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 7:42 PM PDT
Yes, the chocolate Jesus is beyond tacky, but it is still art. And the sanctimonious whiners who can't understand that are what is wrong with America.
Posted by thenamesdave at 07:32 PM : Mar 30, 2007

There is a lot wrong with America, but a lack of understanding of what art is not one of them. The right to freedom of speech does not imply a right to trample on the ideologies and beliefs of others. That is just ethics. Just because you could, does not mean you should.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 7:48 PM PDT
Also passerby2, it is possible to dislike the actions of a person and not dislike the person. I may personally disagree with homosexuality, but I will not condone or hate a person for choosing to be homosexual. Some of the greatest people I have ever known are homosexual and that is their choice. If a woman chooses abortion, while I oppose it, does not mean that I will hate that person. If you have children, you will know what I mean. We may not like what our children do at times, but that never changes our love for them. This is the same thing. Those that choose to murder or choose to destroy buildings, homes and lives, are people who choose a life outside of christianity. So please, do not condemn all of christianity for the actions of a few who choose hatred and act out on that hatred.

That is what has happened to the Middle East. The hatred of a group of people is spreading like a disease and the hatred of those individuals (I do not believe all muslims are of the same ilk, again, religions of all kinds have those who are just evil and that has nothing to do with the idea of the faith of the mass at all, but is twisted into something unrecognizable to fit the political ambitions of a few) is killing thousands.
Reply to this comment
by duhrer March 30, 2007 7:50 PM PDT
Once again, the hypocritcal christians. (in this case catholics) have bullied an art institution because their display offends their sensibilities. If you don't like the display, don't go see it. Why did the art director have to lose his job over this? So much for home of the free. I have an idea... if you believe in your religion strong enough, you don't have to worry about everyone else trying to tear you down. Sounds like more christian paranoia invading our secular society. Last time christians got a wild hair about stuff like this, they burned a bunch of people in the name of God. When will they ever learn?
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:03 PM PDT
Sounds like more christian paranoia invading our secular society. Last time christians got a wild hair about stuff like this, they burned a bunch of people in the name of God. When will they ever learn?
Posted by duhrer at 07:50 PM : Mar 30, 2007

Do you have specifics do go with that?
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 8:04 PM PDT
I don't think it's art (but then I disagree about a lot of what is called art) - but freedom of speech very, very, very much includes the right to trample on the ideologies and beliefs of others. Controversial speech is exactly and precisely why that right was written into our Constitution!

Every great movement, every change, tramples on the ideologies and beliefs of others. Jesus trampled on the beliefs of the Jewish institutions of the time.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:07 PM PDT
Jesus trampled on the beliefs of the Jewish institutions of the time.
Posted by SusanHelit at 08:04 PM : Mar 30, 2007

Jesus did not trample them, he made them question them. There is a difference and he did nothing to hurt them, but he stood up for his beliefs. Why do you have such a hard time understanding the difference between standing up for what you believe versus forcing your beliefs on others and/or trampling on the beliefs of others? There is a big difference.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:11 PM PDT
Jesus was also Jewish, so he had even more right to question what he was being taught if he felt compelled to. Questioning and making people think on what they are teaching is different then trampling. He was also fulling prophecies fortold in the Jewish religion. People have a hard time seeing what is right in their face. They were looking so hard and praying so hard for the Messiah, that they couldn't see it when it was there. And Yes, I understand the Jewish faith. My uncle and cousins are Jewish.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:11 PM PDT
Jesus was also Jewish, so he had even more right to question what he was being taught if he felt compelled to. Questioning and making people think on what they are teaching is different then trampling. He was also fulling prophecies fortold in the Jewish religion. People have a hard time seeing what is right in their face. They were looking so hard and praying so hard for the Messiah, that they couldn't see it when it was there. And Yes, I understand the Jewish faith. My uncle and cousins are Jewish.
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 8:14 PM PDT
To the Jews of the time, he was trampling on their cherished beliefs and traditions. You agree, so to you, it's just questioning. To them, what he was saying was blasphemy and wrong. To the artist - what was he saying here - have you even thought about that?

Myself, I see a very thought provoking (and I usually don't go for this type of thing), and pretty pro-christian sentiment. Jesus as he really was on the cross (the romans weren't nice enough to provide the loincloth), in chocolate like the Easter bunnies that now very nearly represent Easter. Think about it.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:20 PM PDT
To the Jews of the time, he was trampling on their cherished beliefs and traditions. You agree, so to you, it's just questioning. To them, what he was saying was blasphemy and wrong. To the artist - what was he saying here - have you even thought about that?
Posted by SusanHelit at 08:14 PM : Mar 30, 2007

Do you see where someone is entitled to a right to stand up for what they see as wrong? That is all the christians who disagree with this are doing? The part that outrages is me is the stereotyping of christians and the total and utter disregard of our beliefs that others have posted on this website. I disagree strongly with that statue of chocolate mostly because of its timing. This is coming to the most holy week in the christian faith and making fun of that, making light of that, is just wrong.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever felt so strongly about something and believed so much in something that you would defend it with every breath in your body? Your children perhaps? Perhaps it might be cancer. Or it might be eradicating child abuse. Or it might standing up for women's rights. Whatever it is that someone believes in and cherishes it worth something to that person. That is christianity to christians and that is what the holy week is. This is a bad time to be putting out art week that makes fun of a very important time in the christian faith.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:25 PM PDT
Also, I know the Jewish community believe that Jesus was committing blasphemy, but I believe that he scared them and we all know that people have a strong tendency to denouce and hate that of which they do not understand. They did not understand Jesus or his mission.

Did you also know that the reason he was tried and crucified was for political gain? It had nothing to do with trampling of people's belief, but everything to do with Pontious Pilate appeasing the people to keep Caesar happy. He was also a threat to the leaders of the Jewish community because of the support he had from his followers and the people who flocked to him. It was a dangerous time and there was much political unrest. They believed, that if he so chose, he could raise an army and defeat their oppressors. Jesus was even asked to by Barabas, who was freed instead of Jesus. Don't confuse religious trampling with political upheaval, which is why he was crucified.
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 8:26 PM PDT
You're entitled to stand up for what you think - but so is the artist. And you're not entitled to throw death threats around (which you have not - but that is how the exhibit got cancelled).

Hurt feelings should never ever be written into law. I may have extremely strong feelings about, let's say, child abuse - but that shouldn't mean I can silence people who use the expression "belt them" as a joking reference to using a belt to whip someone.

I've got a lot of strong beliefs - one of which is freedom of speech, freedom of expression. No group should ever be given the power to say what people can and cannot say. Maybe it's rude, maybe it's not (did you think at all about what if the artist is supporting christians and the original meaning of Easter?) - but that doesn't change a thing about freedom of speech.
Reply to this comment
by susanhelit March 30, 2007 8:31 PM PDT
Also, I know the Christian community believe that this artist was committing blasphemy, but I believe that he scared them and we all know that people have a strong tendency to denouce and hate that of which they do not understand. They did not understand this artist or his mission.

... same argument works for both sides.

Not that it matters - we have freedom of speech here - period. Not freedom of speech the majority finds worthy, not freedom of pretty speech that makes people feel good, but freedom of all speech. A lot of great speech has been strongly opposed in this country, as well as everywhere it happens - from pushing civil rights, christian missionaries, womens rights, Martin Luther, and so on and so forth. And whenever the government thinks it can get away with it, it wants to censor what it doesn't like, as 'dirty', 'offensive', etc. The very reason why our founding fathers wrote in an absolute right to free speech.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 March 30, 2007 8:38 PM PDT
"How is a piece of chocolate destroying the Christian religion?" - Posted by SusanHelit at 05:00 PM : Mar 30, 2007

It's only a small change from "Hershey" to "Heresy."

Seriously, though, Jesus called himself "the Manna that has come down from heaven."

What was Mannah ? It was probably Chocolate flavored Bread.

Of course it was.

Why else would Chocolate be the only "sweet" that is also a health food ? The Bible says, "Taste and see how sweet is the Lord." (Psalm 34:8, 1 Peter 2:3).

And science confirms the health benefits of chocolate: e.g. "Studies have shown that small portions of dark chocolate can improve blood vessel flow, especially in older adults, and may improve blood sugar and insulin sensitivity to help reduce the risk of diabetes.

One study, published in the journal Hypertension, reported that the antioxidants found in dark chocolate could help reduce high blood pressure. The study participants who ate chocolate also reduced their LDL "bad" cholesterol levels, and improved insulin sensitivity. A little chocolate goes a long way, however. The study subjects were limited to a small portion of dark chocolate per day and cut calories elsewhere in their diets to avoid weight gain." - WebMD.com

It all fits together.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:41 PM PDT
Yes, we have freedom of speech. But with that freedom comes a responsibility---on all sides and all religions---to respect each other and the opposing faiths from which we all came. Many flocked to America for one thing---freedom from religious persecution. That goes for all religions and not just christianity, but more and more, it is christianity that is being asked to give up aspects of our faith so as not to offend others of different religious beliefs. Why then, is that same freedom of religion being lost to christians and the freedom of christians to have the freedom of speech to speak our prayers and our beliefs?
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 8:43 PM PDT

It comes down to freedom of speech needing an unspoken agreement between humans of all walks of life that a certain ethical and moral guideline is established. That is what is missing from America. To have freedoms is a great and powerful thing. To have the freedom to say and believe as we want is a wonderful thing. But, where does it end if there are no guidelines at all in terms of tact and ethics and morals? If we choose to be crude and disrespectful to each other over important aspects of who we are, and faith is a LARGE part of what makes us who we are as individuals, then where does it end? I am not at all blind to the harsh reality that thousands of people out there, if not millions, have a horrible feeling towards those of different religions. But again, is it RIGHT, I am not speaking of legality, but is it RIGHT to target and belittle those of different faiths, color, ethniticity, gender, or anything that makes a human being unique and different from others only because we can? No, it isn't. Again, just because you COULD, does not always mean you SHOULD. This artist COULD and DID make a controversial piece of artwork. Does that mean he SHOULD have is the question.
Reply to this comment
by me4prezz March 30, 2007 9:30 PM PDT
george2221:

Please, do tell what this fear is based upon and upon whom this fear is so based? I am anxiously awaiting the story of this one. Just where, again, is the foundation of this fear based?
Reply to this comment
See all 76 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs