Why is Chocolate Jesus considered "art" but Muhammed cartoons are "racist"?

Question

Can anyone explain this?

Answer 1

Double standard.

Just like it is considered ok in Mexico to call Jews bad names but it is wrong for Jews to call Mexicans names.

Answer 2

This whole thing about chocolate Jesus is stupid. People are more insulted by the fact that his genitals are exposed- like Jesus was blank from the waist down in real life.
This was an expression of one mans faith. I'm sure if he were Islamic, he would have made a chocolate Muhammad, but he's catholic. Why do people get so worked up by these things? I could understand it if he made it out of s.h.i.t- but it's chocolate! It's called sweet Jesus. How is it insulting? I dont get it. Maybe if he'd used white chocolate people wouldn't fuss.

Answer 3

Haven't heard of Chocolate Jesus, except for the Tom Waits song'Chocolate Jesus" which is excellent.
I thought maybe you were talking about "Piss Christ" which was a multimedia construction that was banned from display in most places and cost the artist his NEA grant, based on the outrage of American Chistians.
The artist was Christian.
Now, imagine if the artist was a muslim. That should help you to understand, if not sympathize, with the reaction of many in the Muslim world to cartoons about their prophet

Or maybe it won't....are hate-mongerers incapable of that type of projection?
Oh yeah, they call it "moral relativism."
100 years ago it was called :having a Christian attitude"

Answer 4

OUTSTANDING DAVID M !!

The Roman Catholic Church has made TRIILLIONS off of various interpretations of the crucifixtion, yet will complain and threaten the artist of a crucifix that is anatomically correct and of chocolate... YET, the 2nd Commandment states "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Islam STRICTLY forbids images of God (Alah)... but contrary to a common belief, Islamic art does include representations of humans, of animals, and even of the Prophet himself: these were banned only in religious sites and works (mosques, madrasas, and Qu'rans), and even there exceptions may be found.

SO, I find the "Catholic League" protesting Chocolate Jesus to be abit out of line just as I think the level of violence regarding the Danish cartoons was out of line

Answer 5

Actually, the Catholic League is up in arms over Chocolate Jesus. He's got no loincloth and he is edible. Muhammed cartoon was never considered "racist" that I know of. It is highly sacriligeous to show his image. That is how christianity used to be before it was romanized. Pagan Rome was a statue worshipping society, so when they turnd christian Jupiter and Apollo became Jesus and Mary. I grew up catholic, but don't ahere to it anymore.

Answer 6

First, any image of Muhammad is considered sacrilege, where images of Jesus are not. Second, Christians tend to be able to take criticism in a slightly better spirit than Muslims. Third, respect for others' religions does not seem to extend to Christianity anymore.

Answer 7

Look I'm a liberal and I could quite frankly give a rat's patootie if Muslims think Mohammed shouldn't be held up to the light of day and examined and yes ridiculed if people so desire, let's face it religion is as fair game as any other facet of the human endeavor

Answer 8

When I complained about the local public high school letting a photographer autograph his photos of an embryonic stem cell for students, his argument was "ART."
So if I flip the middle finger to a liberal, I will call it ART.

Answer 9

People are opposed to the Jesus "art" too. There were protests. And the Mohammed cartoons were in bad taste.

Answer 10

that is a very good question and my only answer reflects the spirit of your question. I find this "art" insulting and demeaning to my beliefs but my Lord Jesus said to pray for your enemies which is a whole lot harder than it sounds- and to forgive. thank you for mentioning this bit of nastiness.