Double standards again?

Question

I see many christians think it is ridiculous that some muslims are upset about the naming of a teddy bear.
However, weren't many christians upset about the chocolate jesus statue and viewed it as an attack on christianity?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6509127.stm

Answer 1

Oh for crying out loud. The chocolate Jesus was not an act of blasphemy. The guy who created it said exactly what his intentions were. To show that, at Easter time, the Bunny, chocolate and Easter Eggs were more important than your Religion. Which is why he made Jesus out of Chocolate.

All you did was back up darwinsfriend's point.

Answer 2

As far as the statue, I think the outcry over it was due to two things:
1. The timing of the unveiling. I'm sure the artist could have chosen a better week than Easter...like, say, sometime in February.
2. The fact that it was a naked (and anatomically correct) chocolate sculpture of Jesus.

I had a problem with it, to be honest, but the way I look at it is, we have freedom of expression. I didn't like it, so I wasn't about to pay to go see it. If others do, that's their prerogative.

I do think that some of my fellow Christians protest the silliest things, though, like The Da Vinci Code (which was fiction), Harry Potter (also fiction), and even the current outcry over The Golden Compass.

It's too bad that Sudan doesn't have the same laws.

There is one thing to keep in mind though. While the sculptor had the right to sculpt a chocolate Jesus, the Christians who protested it have every right to do so. They weren't calling for the sculptor to be lashed, or imprisoned. Therein lies the difference.

We don't start riots over stupid crap like cartoons and books. We might demonstrate against it, but this is exercising our constitutional rights. We don't imprison people for doing something or saying something we consider sacrilegious.

Again, huge difference.

Plus, how many people name their kids Jesus? There's no problem with that.

Personally, I think the whole thing in Sudan is because the teacher is British. If she was Arab, I don't think it'd be an issue.

Answer 3

After reading some of the responses you received I can't even answer your question; I have to pose my own question: Is there ever an intelligent Christian on here? You know, screw it, I will lower my standards and ask if there is a Christian on here that is capable of spell checking.

I swear, for a group that worships a book, you would think at least one of them would be capable of writing a coherent thought, punctuating or spelling.

A chocolate Jesus is "blasphemy?" Do any of you Christians realize that your religion is a blood religion based on a human sacrifice and celebrated through acts of symbolic cannibalism? Eating the host is the eating of Christ's body, right? Symbolic cannibalism.
If you are a real Catholic you are taught that a miracle occurs when taking the host (transubstantiation); the wafer becomes Christ's actual flesh. So, Catholics believe they are cannibals.

This means the Pope is a cannibal.

Well, it does.

Answer 4

there is not something new in double standards, Celtic comprehend all approximately that. in case you solid your suggestions decrease back to final season and seem at how Lenny turn into dealt with in comparison suitable best pal, then examine it to Diouf and Bougherra who bodily guy dealt with a referee and Diouf for his touch line spat, then you easily ought to ask... followers must be annoyed at this modern outburst of stupidity by ability of the powers that seem choosing on soccer for the inadequacies.. The help communities ought to decide for the enjoying cards over the heads recurring, which you postpone collectively to make the message, it takes extra establishing in spite of the shown fact that it may be impossible to supply up it...

Answer 5

There seem to be quite a few differences here. For one thing, the teacher with the teddy bear was not merely told off, she was jailed.

The chocolate Jesus ("My Sweet Lord" indeed!) was depicted "without a loin cloth." I suspect that, taken with the title, they assumed it was a little too much sexual innuendo. Also, the photograph shows the figure to be positioned such that the part that lacks a loin cloth would be at about five feet or so off the ground. Think about it.

Answer 6

But no one was arrested or imprisoned as a result of those objections. The use of the reaction of religious people to alleged incidents of blasphemy as a means to highlight its "irrationality" is a propaganda move of secularists to deflect attention away from their own totalitarian and irrational tendencies. The need to have scapegoats to make sense of and support one's worldviews is a universal in human culture-- and secularists use these scapegaots just as readily as religious folks!

Answer 7

it is not the same....

naming a teddy bear is a common practice for children, is harmless, and gives personal comfort to the child...naming anyone after someone else is showing respect and affection for that name

the chocolate statue was not meant to comfort, or show respect or affection. it was meant to ridicule Jesus...also the "eating" of something had a sexual connotation as well as a destructive one, since eating would destroy the statue.

Answer 8

Touche.

Answer 9

two things struck me about the article-one they complained that it was done in the holy week-are the other 51 weeks unholy-and two it said he was naked-that begs to ask-was he well hung----just thoughts from my warped mind---yes those are double standards-but i dont think they whipped anybody-might have wanted to-but didnt-had to settle for condemning them to hell-----smile and enjoy the day

Answer 10

the chocolate jesus was clearly an intentional act of blasphemy, since it showed our lord on the cross.

the teddy bear was named mohammed because the commonest name of the boy students in the class was mohammed.

if the teddy bear had been named 'allah' there would have been some congruence between the two cases.

but since mohammed was, and still is, a regular name for a human being there is no similarity at all.

there are plenty of islamic scholars who have no problem with what gill gibbons did. the sudan is no more typical of islam than utah is of christianity.