Thursday, April 5, 2007

The "Chocolate" Jesus

At least Kathleen Parker had the gumption to inform Roman Catholics both here and across the nation that it really is permissible for mockery of religion to exist in this nation. The issue at hand, an anatomically correct "chocolate" Jesus. Only the latest in a parade of "Piss Christ," (crucified Christ in a bottle of urine) crucified Christ on drugs, the virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung. Only in America would it be possible, right, for mockery of that sort to thoroughly exercise the Christian soul and having them whining about "secularists" having a field day with their religion and at their expense.

What Kathleen Parker has not taken note of however is this:
  • Religious mockery as art and as a propaganda tool has been around for hundreds of years.
  • The alleged "secularists" may mock all things Christian but Protestants have done much more in opposing all things Catholic. They have opposed Christmas (during the Puritan times), Hallowe'en (until business interests found a way to cash in on it) those who profess the protestant faith (by putting their bibles on every school child's desk to oppose the influx of Irish Catholics), changing St. Nicholas into a guy who delivers toys by sled and eight flying reindeer and then turning him into a Satanic villain (there really is a web site that is devoted to this), a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the 19th century that stated, "This is a Christian nation," but from that ruling onward, Roman Catholics haven't exactly been welcomed by their protestant neighbors (especially the Ku Klux Klan protestant neighbors.)
  • So, Rev. Donohue (mentioned in the editorial) targets the business and its bottom line in the full glare of his 15 moments of fame before the news cameras.
  • But, as with radical Islamists flying planes into buildings, Rev. Donohue makes use of only different tactics to intimidate. But the effect (intimidation) is the goal and ultimately proved far more successful than what Osama bin Laden achieved on 9/11/2001.
Ms. Parker may not love the thought, but there will in fact be inevitable comparisons between hot-heads like Donohue and hot-heads like Muhamid Hussein (or what ever name given to the latest suicide bomber in Iraq, these days.) The reaction of Donohue to a "chocolate" Jesus and the reaction of Islamists to depictions of the prophet in a mocking way. How Donohue chose to attack the display of the "chocolate" Jesus really does not carry "superficial" similarities at all. Not when intimidation is at base toward any individual or business that steps out of line with regard to what is canonically correct. Sam Harris, "The End of Faith," demonstrates this is also how Muslims think.

And from another book, by historian Maurice Cotterell, a depiction of Christ on a Celtic/Druid cross wearing the Druidic sun cross as some sort of halo. (Halo--Helios?) Why isn't Donohue crying over the fact that his ancestors thoroughly paganized Christ? That would seem to be a far worse depiction than Christ as a giant piece of chocolate candy.

No, Donohue might not personally fly a plane into a building even though Christ got depicted in chocolate. But he did seriously affect the business' bottom line of the gallery where he staged his protest and forced that gallery to remove the "offending" chocolate statue. Isn't that basically what stone throwing, etc. Islamists accomplished when it came to ultimately preventing any world wide publication of mockery of the prophet into other newspapers? Same difference. We know where Ms. Parker stands, as a person who doesn't want to see that the only differences between brands of extremism is as a matter of scale. Donohue could have fire-bombed the gallery (as a worst case scenario) just as extreme anti-abortionists have killed abortion providers and fire-bombed their clinics.

Addendum as of 6 April 2007; watching the FBI show, "Numbers" tonight, brought me back to thinking what extremism has wrought. A man of extreme ideas may only speak them, and the first amendment does protect him. It is what follows, that no Bill of Rights will ever protect: the consequences of crime. A suspect may have certain rights, the incarcerated have certain rights. But, violence that springs of extremist language has no protection under the law.

No comments: