Muslims Inspire Christians in Case of Christ's Cock

What would Jesus ban?

Christians have warned of a backlash of art world vandalism, following a decision to halt a private prosecution of a Gateshead [U.K.] gallery which exhibited a statue of Jesus with an erection. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ruled that there was "no case to answer" for the Baltic Art Gallery which displayed the foot-high plaster statue as part of an exhibition by controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh.

Christian Emily Mapfuwa, of Brentwood, Essex, said the show, entitled Gone, Yet Still, was offensive to her faith and instructed her lawyers to seek a private prosecution against the gallery. She argued the Baltic would not have dared depict Mohammed in such a way.

I think Ms. Mapfuwa is on to something there. The reason why Mohammed's erect member is unlikely to be depicted is well-known to all. The widespread reticence has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with sure-fire threats of violence as well as, sometimes, actual smashings, slashings, and murders. How wonderfully christian that the Lord's followers now threaten to take a page from the Mohammedans' bloody playbook.

Ms Mapfuwa's supporters warned [that the legal decision] could lead some people to destroy similar art works. Her solicitor Michael Phillips said: "Although it is right to say that there was no actual disorder, there was potentially such disorder, which was evidenced to the CPS in the witness statements provided. In particular one witness felt like smashing the object."

So there is supposedly a witness who felt like destroying the statue, and lo, someone with the benefit of an actual law degree argues that the existence of such would-be vandals is the very reason why impolite religious images must be outlawed across the land. Incredible.

The actual law, with which solicitor Michael Phillips surely is at least somewhat acquainted, goes the other way: Destroy someone else's property, prepare to go to jail.

Over at mediawatchwatch UK, blogger 'Monitor' predicts that the case will have a life-long special resonance for the plaintiff:

Emily Mapfuwa: A name which will be associated with Christ's cock for ever and ever, amen.

Comments

[Tom G]

What always gets me laughing about these cases is that OBVIOUSLY, God is fully capable of destroying such offensive art - or the artist - on His/Her own (assuming that God exists, of course). So you could reason that if said art is NOT destroyed it cannot be so offensive (to God) as the critics claim it to be.
Oh, wait, there I go again expecting religious fanatics to be LOGICAL !

[hermesten]

But did they show why Christ had a hardon? I doubt it. Apparently a couple of the apostles were pretty buff.

[Tim King]

So someone "felt like smashing the object." So what? Maybe that's the emotional reaction the artist intended to evoke. That reveals a problem with the viewer, not with the artist.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that whenever you say something meaningful, you will tick off a bunch of people. The more meaningful, the more people you'll tick off. Making a difference is about polarizing your audience, not bringing them together. Funny, Jesus Christ said something like that himself.

-TimK