So You Hate Michelle Malin

[Annie]

Too bad, the question is more than relevant:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007208.htm

How would the MSM cover "Chocolate Mohammed" at Ramadan?
By Michelle Malkin · March 30, 2007 01:07 PM

How would the MSM cover an artist exhibition of a "Chocolate Mohammed" timed to coincide with Ramadan?

They wouldn't.

But find an artist to mock Jesus at Easter with a chocolate sculpture...

chocolatejesus.jpg

...and you'll get wall-to-wall coverage. "Chocolate Jesus" is on Fox, MSNBC, and ABC. And CNN. And all over the web.

No pixelation. No withholding the photos in the name of respect for Christianity. No taboos.

Where's the MSM's concern for avoiding deliberately provocative religious insults now?

Remember?

"CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam."

"CNN is not showing the negative caricatures of the likeness of Prophet Mohammed because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself."
​

And remember:

"They wouldn't meet our standards for what we publish in the paper," said Leonard Downie, Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, which ran a front-page story on the issue Friday, but has not published the cartoons. "We have standards about language, religious sensitivity, racial sensitivity and general good taste." ...

At USA Today, deputy foreign editor Jim Michaels offered a similar explanation. "At this point, I'm not sure there would be a point to it," he said about publishing the cartoons. "We have described them, but I am not sure running it would advance the story." Although he acknowledged that the cartoons have news value, he said the offensive nature overshadows that.

The Boston Globe, while acknowledging the right of newspapers to print material that may offend, argues that "newspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."​

In the land of media dhimmitude, tolerance is a one-way street.

 

[Annie]

Gee the liberal responses have been underwhelming.

The hotel: Roger Smith Hotel in New York

Source: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/chocolatejesus032807

If you wish you can see the complete 'piece' at the link.

Seems the exhibit is cancelled, they are blaming the 'Catholics':

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=/ThisHour/Archive/NTH20070330w.html

 

[jasendorf]

How is a sculpture of Jesus in chocolate any more or less offensive than one of him in marble or Play-doh (which I'm pretty sure I may have made in Catholic grade school)...

what's chocolate got to do with it?

Why do Christians hate chocolate?

 

[jasendorf]

Evil Nakedness Mocking Christians!!!!

 

[mattskramer]

Would someone please explain to me what the big deal/controversy is? It is an art exhibit - One person’s artistic expression. I just don’t understand why people are upset. This is as much news as my saying that I had tomato soup for lunch yesterday.

 

[Superlative]

Its not considered as taboo because Christians are the majority, making popular opinion that they can handle it.
They get what they want in other areas, far exceeding any petty issues.
They lobbied the government to ban gay marriage, i think a chocolate jesus isnt that big a deal.

In the Quran there are "rules" to the effect that there be no imagery of the Prophet Mohammed,
Christians hang Jesus from rearview mirrors.

the artist didnt break any "religious rules", why not show images of it?

People take offence because one person isnt sure they like the chocolate Jesus, so they decide they are against Chocolate and Jesus, before they even bothered to analyze the situation and come to a rational decision, theyre banning chocolate at easter.

Relax about the chocolate Jesus.

 

[hjmick]

Would someone please explain to me what the big deal/controversy is? It is an art exhibit - One person’s artistic expression. I just don’t understand why people are upset.

They don't know which head to bite off first.

Seriously, suppose it was a naked, chocolate Mohammed. Would the Muslim communtiy be offended? Would the display be taken down? You bet they would and you better believe it would, quick, fast, and in a hurry. Personally, I couldn't care less if it was Jesus, Mohammed, JFK, MLK, or William Shatner. You're right, it's art.

This is as much news as my saying that I had tomato soup for lunch yesterday.

YOU BASTARD! Tomato soup? Commie.

 

[mattskramer]

They don't know which head to bite off first.

Seriously, suppose it was a naked, chocolate Mohammed. Would the Muslim communtiy be offended? Would the display be taken down? You bet they would and you better believe it would, quick, fast, and in a hurry. Personally, I couldn't care less if it was Jesus, Mohammed, JFK, MLK, or William Shatner. You're right, it's art.

I think that the reaction would be similar. Simply put, if enough Christians were offended, the offensive image of Christ would be removed. If enough Muslims were offended, the offensive image of Mohamed would be removed.

I remember “Piss Christ” and “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Christians had a hissy fit.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Personally, I couldn't care less if it was Jesus, Mohammed, JFK, MLK, or William Shatner.

You couldn't care less if it was William Shatner???? Show some sensitivity to the Trekkies, ya infidel. Tomorrow there'll be thousands of dorks protesting outside of Margaritaville and burning Jimmy Buffet CD's.

 

[mattskramer]

You couldn't care less if it was William Shatner???? Show some sensitivity to the Trekkies, ya infidel. Tomorrow there'll be thousands of dorks protesting outside of Margaritaville and burning Jimmy Buffet CD's.

LOL.

 

[hjmick]

You couldn't care less if it was William Shatner???? Show some sensitivity to the Trekkies, ya infidel. Tomorrow there'll be thousands of dorks protesting outside of Margaritaville and burning Jimmy Buffet CD's.

BLASPHEMER!

 

[musicman]

I think that the reaction would be similar. Simply put, if enough Christians were offended, the offensive image of Christ would be removed. If enough Muslims were offended, the offensive image of Mohamed would be removed.

I remember “Piss Christ” and “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Christians had a hissy fit.

Refresh my memory, will you, matts? What was the death toll on the "Piss Christ" hissy fit?

 

[Annie]

Refresh my memory, will you, matts? What was the death toll on the "Piss Christ" hissy fit?

Now that is the point. How many have died because of the chocolate Jesus? Then elephant dung Mary? The piss Christ? Were there upset people? Yes. Did they kill? No.

Look at the Islamic cartoons, not nearly as offensive. How many died? Hint, more than 5. How many of the cartoonists still have fatwas ordered? Hint, more than 5.

Now look at how many 'images' there are about Jews draining the blood of Christian babies to make Passover matzos. Scott removed some, good for him. But it's 'acceptable', though way past disavowed. No problem, every year same stuff. How many killed? Umm, less than 1?

 

[mattskramer]

Refresh my memory, will you, matts? What was the death toll on the "Piss Christ" hissy fit?

There was no death toll on “Piss Christ.” So, what is your point? There were assaults and threats with the release of “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “Dogma”.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=522702&postcount=8

 

[actsnoblemartin]

for their hypocrisy. The cross in a jar in urine, anyone remember that?

The liberals are afraid of muslims, and they hate christians.

Every time a criticism or muslims or islam is launched, their only rebuke is, not all, or racist. Instead of actually with the issue, and to the liberal

A black, jew, asian, hispanic, or non-white, who is conservative is an uncle tom, or equivalent, because only whites can be conservative according to them

liberals, have their heads up their butts, NOT all , but most.

Their i met my politically correct quota for the night

 

[musicman]

There was no death toll on “Piss Christ.” So, what is your point?

Simply this: since, A) Christianity does not call for the death of anyone who mocks it, B) Islam DOES, and C) filmmakers and cultural lights fairly throw their shoulders out of their sockets, patting themselves on the back for being "courageously irreverent" - let's see some real daring. Let's see the Chocolate Mohammed.

I won't hold my breath.

There were assaults and threats with the release of “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “Dogma”.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=522702&postcount=8

Shoot me some links to these incidents, will you, matts? I'd like a more complete picture of what went down, and how. I can tell you - even without such links - that these people were not acting with even the tacit approval of organized Christianity. Islam, on the other hand, DEMANDS violence and retribution.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

With all due respect to everyone involved in this thread.

Christianity did not tell anyone to kill anyone for mocking christiniaty, while islam calls for death, those who mock islam or even convert to another religion.

 

[Superlative]

With all due respect to everyone involved in this thread.

Christianity did not tell anyone to kill anyone for mocking christiniaty, while islam calls for death, those who mock islam or even convert to another religion.

Yeah , recently christianity hasnt called for killing, (unles you call God telling George Bush to invade Iraq a call for killing) But go back a few thousand years and see how many people have died in the name of Christianity, and i dont mean just wars,
Im talking about things like burning people at the stake and drowning them, where the fuckin bulletproof logic was 'if she drowned or burned, she was a witch, and God obviously wasnt protecting her cause she's a witch'. hows that for fuckin retarded circular logic?

Islam is just a little farther behind. Give them time and they will systematically impose their belief system without violence, as soon as the US democratizes Iraq. It will all be wrapped in a perfect Golden Godly bow.

 

[Superlative]

"....However misguided we may think them they are motivated........by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully persuing what their religion tells them. they are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncracy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith."

RICHARD DAWKINS - The God Delusion- pg 304.

This view is to be applied to Terrorists, and the Christian murderers of abortion doctors.

 

[Shogun]

to be fair..


the number of abortion doctors killed by fanatic christians come no where near those killed by fanatic muslims.

point in case:
Theo Van Gogh pissed off lots of people.. but who killed him?

Eric Rudolph proves that such violent zealot behaviour is not unique to any particular faith... but, compare the numbers in recent history. This isnt 1692. Give the christians a little credit since the fact is, that in 2007 in America, I can post this image and not be murdered on the street:

ps
if we can rationalize piss christ then mohammed should not be off limits. I have no problem making fun of jesus. Likewise, I should not be killed for making fun of mohammed.

pps
let malkin, coulter, bill-o etc say what they want to say... we all have opinions. agree or disagree, perhaps an opposing opinion will clarify your own belief... OR.... develop a bit of consideration for others that you never knew was there.