Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[fcgv]

Nothing is sacred anymore. Homosexuals and their supporters mock our Lord and His Church. Shame on them all.

-------------------

http://religion.gaynewsblog.net/2007/08/lo...st-19-2007.html

Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show in Sweden Aug. 12. The controversial images also appear in the new book “Art That Dares: Gay Jesus, Woman Christ, and More”

Los Angeles, CA -- Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show in Sweden Aug. 12. The controversial images also appear in the new book "Art That Dares: Gay Jesus, Woman Christ, and More" by Rev. Kittredge Cherry.

The fight began when a group of young people tried to set fire to a poster at a cultural center that was showing photos of Jesus in contemporary queer context. Staff intervened and as many as 30 people joined the fight, according to news reports. The conflict occurred in the Swedish city of Jonkoping, known as a center of evangelical Christianity.

Swedish photographer Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin created her "Ecce Homo" series by putting Jesus into a contemporary lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) context.

An online gallery of selected gay Jesus images, including Ohlson Wallin's work, was recently added to Cherry's website, JesusInLove.org.

"The violence in Sweden is the latest example of why the queer Christ is needed," said lesbian Christian author Kittredge Cherry. "People try to censor the gay Jesus, but I compiled queer Christ images a book to show that Christ belongs to everybody, even the sexual outcasts. Jesus taught love, but now Christian rhetoric is being used to justify hate and discrimination against women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people."

"Art That Dares" is packed with color images by 11 contemporary artists from the United States and Europe. They work both inside and outside the church, but all of their art respects the teachings of Jesus. In the book, the artists tell the stories behind their images, including censorship, hate mail, violence, death threats, and vandalism that destroyed their work. A lively introduction puts the art into political and historical context, exploring issues of blasphemy and artistic freedom.

In addition to the Swedish photos, the explicitly queer Christian imagery in "Art That Dares includes a 24-panel gay vision of the Passion by New York painter F. Douglas Blanchard and the notorious "faggot crucifixion" painting by Atlanta's Becki Jayne Harrelson. Gary Speziale sculpts a sensuous moment between a nude Adam and the new Adam, while Alex Donis shows Jesus kissing a Hindu god.

Rev. Cherry was at the forefront of the sexuality debate at the National Council of Churches (USA) and the World Council of Churches as National Ecumenical Officer for Metropolitan Community Churches. She holds degrees in journalism, art history and religion.

Cherry's website, JesusInLove.org, offers spiritual resources for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people and their allies. Her other books include "Jesus in Love," a novel about a queer Christ.

[Borg]

A tempest in a teapot.

Now I wonder what would have happened if it had been an art show depicting Mohammed as a gay fella'?

World wide ramifications perhaps?

Or would it even have been allowed to be shown?

Borg

[maldon_road]

The fight began when a group of young people tried to set fire to a poster at a cultural center that was showing photos of Jesus in contemporary queer context.

Does sacrilege justify violence?

[Argus]

Does sacrilege justify violence?

If you try really, really hard to offend people, sometimes you succeed.

[B. Max]

Lets hope they go back and burn the entire den of filth to the ground.

[CLRV]

Perfect.

Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

[marcinmoka]

I read this:

Now I wonder what would have happened if it had been an art show depicting Mohammed as a gay fella'?

And right before I had a chance to articulate a response, I noticed B.Max's deeply thought out response:

Lets hope they go back and burn the entire den of filth to the ground.

Intolerant extremists of any stripe must be dealt with appropriately.

[jbg]

A tempest in a teapot.

Now I wonder what would have happened if it had been an art show depicting Mohammed as a gay fella'?

World wide ramifications perhaps?

Or would it even have been allowed to be shown?

Borg

Someone should try doing just that.

[jbg]

I don't believe in violence. I do believe in freedom of speech. I'd prefer a verbal way to show just how hateful that art display was to vandalism.

[Argus]

Perfect.

Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

Why? There is no question that if this focused on Mohamed these people would have been killed. In fact, if they'd done this in a Muslim nation they'd have been arrested and quite possibly tortured by their government. Certainly howling mobs of religious fanatics would have hanged them, at the least.

[jefferiah]

I don't believe in violence. I do believe in freedom of speech. I'd prefer a verbal way to show just how hateful that art display was to vandalism.

Well said. Agreed.

[betsy]

Perfect.

Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

You wish.

Something is askew with perception if this simple little "over-reaction" by a group of 30 young people burning posters - posters of their God being insulted - is compared to SIMULTANEOUS MASS VIOLENT PROTESTS BY THOUSANDS ALL OVER THE WORLD, burning, vandalising, hurting and KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!

Comparison between this so-called art show and those mohammed cartoons.

Reaction-wise? Yep. Islam still have that monopoly right now.

And by the looks of it, this group of 30 young people were copycatting the violent reactions of the Muslims. Talk about influence and setting an example!

Wait till all radicals from all other religions start doing the same thing. Hey, if a certain group can get their message across and get the world to cower in fear....why couldn't others do the same tactic?

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

Intolerant extremists of any stripe must be dealt with appropriately.

I'd say the gay organizers for this event are the INTOLERANT EXTREMISTS. And I guess the protesters share your sentiment.

[Guest coot]

Why? There is no question that if this focused on Mohamed these people would have been killed. In fact, if they'd done this in a Muslim nation they'd have been arrested and quite possibly tortured by their government. Certainly howling mobs of religious fanatics would have hanged them, at the least.

Why is everybody on this board so obsessed with Muslims? It seems every debate instantly reverts to discussing them.

[betsy]

Why is everybody on this board so obsessed with Muslims? It seems every debate instantly reverts to discussing them.

I know the question is directed at Argus, but can I just give my opinion.

It's so easy to get off on a tangent. In this case, some of us were just responding to this:

Now I hope we'll have no more nonsense about Islam somehow having a monopoly on violent overreaction to sacrelidge.

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[gc1765]

I'd say the gay organizers for this event are the INTOLERANT EXTREMISTS.

Using that logic, those Danish cartoonists are the intolerant extremists?

[jbg]

Why is everybody on this board so obsessed with Muslims? It seems every debate instantly reverts to discussing them.

Because they are the single biggest creators of human misery, the single greatest threat to the safety of others, and the single greatest threat to world peace. And they get a free pass.

It is easier for people to prattle about doubtful and remote problems such as "global warming" (as I sit here in NYC in hot August with an outside temperature of 18, and rain), than to focus on the big threat.

[jbg]

Using that logic, those Danish cartoonists are the intolerant extremists?

As I posted above, I don't believe in violence. I do believe in freedom of speech. I'd prefer a verbal way to show just how hateful that art display was to vandalism.

Thus, I am constrained to agree with you here. Good point, and a rare occurence (sp).

[betsy]

Using that logic, those Danish cartoonists are the intolerant extremists?

The cartoons appeared in editorials, I believe. And they were made for a reason - as part of the current problems the world is facing due to terrorism, which is fueled by a religious belief, martyrdom in the name of their God.

This so-called art show by some gay organizers was meant to taunt, to mock, to deliberately cause upset - in a FURTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE the traditional Christian belief.

Would these same gay organizers accept it calmly if some groups decide to put up an art show that depicts and associates gays with all sorts of perversities, most notably pedophilia?

Various themes will provide such elaborate backdrops - from ancient times to pulpits and schools! Historical figures will make quite a contribution in the lavish production of such art show (from toga-clad philosophers chasing young boys merrily in the meadows of Greece to the militant marching of NAMBLA founders in a gay-pride parade) - and it wouldn't require a stretch of the imagination either (unlike this Jesus-as- gay art show). The so-called "faggot cricifixion" will have a gay counterpart - the torture/muder of a young teenage boy abducted, tortured and butchered by the gay killer....or perhaps the artistic rendition of the death of Gacy....

And yet no doubt, such a show would be lambasted as a hate-promoting event, a homophobic art show....fueled by some intolerant gay-hating extremists!

Don't get me wrong, I do not support violence to stress a point....but not all people think or feel as I do. I would rather some groups express their hate through art shows, thus if it's okay for a small group of gay organizers to put up such a show - others should be able to put up the same kind of garbage show to their hearts' content - be it directed towards gays, or women, or children, or Muslims, or dogs and emus.

As long as the public do not fund any such garbage trying to pass up for "art".

But seriously, I think some gays are stretching the limit to the fullest. And it does not bode well.

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[maldon_road]

It is easier for people to prattle about doubtful and remote problems such as "global warming" (as I sit here in NYC in hot August with an outside temperature of 18, and rain), than to focus on the big threat.

I'm going to be in New York in a few days. I sure hope that isn't in Farenheit.

As for the guy who wonders why all conversations get round to Islam, if the Danish cartoonist had decided to parody Catholics or the Pope had talked about Jews would we have seen rioting in the streets? If Salmand Rushdie had decided to write about Baptists would he have received death threats? There is a Muslim cleric in prison in England for telling his followers that they have an obligation to go out and kill a Jew. Did you ever hear an Anglican priest say anything like that?

[jbg]

This so-called art show by some gay organizers was meant to taunt, to mock, to deliberately cause upset - in a FURTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE the traditional Christian belief.

As you know, I am in favor of the freedom to show that kind of "art", and the freedom to mock that art non-violently. I find the attempt to distiguish between trashing the art and the Muslim's reaction to the cartoons to be a bit strained.

Betsy, there's one cogent argument in your quiver you haven't used; who the h*** is funding this so-called "art"? If it's the public, that is downright wrong and should be protested in a democratic manner. If it's some corporation or philanthropy, there should be a deluge of non-violent protest. Clearly, not many will pay to view or buy that garbage.

[maldon_road]

Betsy, there's one cogent argument in your quiver you haven't used; who the h*** is funding this so-called "art"? If it's the public, that is downright wrong and should be protested in a democratic manner. If it's some corporation or philanthropy, there should be a deluge of non-violent protest. Clearly, not many will pay to view or buy that garbage.

Do I recall something a few years ago at the Brooklyn Museum of Art? Christ on the cross in urine? I remember Rudy raising hell about it since it was a publically funded museum.

[Argus]

Why is everybody on this board so obsessed with Muslims? It seems every debate instantly reverts to discussing them.

I didn't bring up Muslims. He did, suggesting that because a few people were upset at this so-called art no one could now bring up Muslim violence - as if somehow this was the equivilent from Christians. Absurd.

[CLRV]

I didn't bring up Muslims. He did, suggesting that because a few people were upset at this so-called art no one could now bring up Muslim violence - as if somehow this was the equivilent from Christians. Absurd.

It's the exact equivalent. They tried to burn the place down. Arson. Ever heard of it? Most normal people would consider it an extreme and unacceptable reaction. Some have already posted their opinion that they didn't go far enough.

It's only because these are so-called Christians that this wasn't plastered across the media as evidence of inherent savagery.

[Bonam]

Because they are the single biggest creators of human misery, the single greatest threat to the safety of others, and the single greatest threat to world peace. And they get a free pass.

I think you're going way too far with that generalization there.