Please explain how this is offensive... especially if you are "...not Christian, or Catholic… or whatever..."
This is about as sterile and non-offensive as it gets... especially on the internet!!! If this offends you, I would seriously reconsider logging back on.
I find it offensive because it's making a mockery of someone's religion. Isn't Christ and the scene of the Last Supper supposed to be a big deal? Why would people not be offended when those images are replaced by cartoon characters?
How about posting some "art" depicting Mohammed? Or is this site only biased against Christianity? I, like Fazia, am not religious, but perverting an icon of Christianity *is* offensive to me. Now, showing that pedophile Mohammed tap dancing? Yeah, that would be funny.
Someone explain to me at what point did Leonardo da Vinci become canon? With all the "I'm offended!"'s being thrown about, you'd think Jesus personally modeled for the painting and decreed that it be put upon every cover of the Bible.
If anything, the original painting portrays a "graven image" and is itself blasphemy, as well as the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Then again, I've never seen a religion more prone to cherry picking their holy texts than Christianity. Seriously, either admit that the writers of the Bible were fallible mortals or start stoning your disobedient children.
I still don't see how this is a "mockery." Is it making fun of Christianity? Doesn't appear that way to me. Does it to you? How?
It's just like replacing the famous Andy Warhol picture of the beatles with different faces. Is that making fun of the Beatles? No. Is it making fun of Andy Warhol? No.
Hmmmm... it doesn't bother me too much, but I can see how it would bother others. Some explanation for the people who can't understand:
The issue that's it happens to be a da Vinci work is completely irrelevent. If someone else had painted it, feelings would remain the same. What bugs many Christians is that a respectful reverent image of their God is being lampooned. If the image was a Petunia Pig parody of da Vinci's even more famous "Mona Lisa" (La Gioconda), nobody would object. It's not the artist or how famous the work is, it's the subject.
It is quite telling that the lampooners wouldn't dare try the same thing with an image of Mohammed (considered by Islam adherents a prophet, not a deity). Reason? They are scared about how devout Moslems might express their displeasure. Lesson? It's only OK to mock someone's religion if you can be reasonably sure they are non-violent.
Muslims have a problem with any image of Muhammad, not just disrespectful ones. They consider it idolatry. Ironically, if Christians followed their holy book with the same rigor as Muslims, they'd feel exactly the same way about Jesus - perhaps even more so since they consider Jesus divine, unlike Muhammad.
Also the assumption that all Muslims are violent makes about as much sense as the counter that all Christians are not. Centennial Olympic Park bombing? The Nuremberg Files hitlist?
It's a strong point you make. I want to bring up what I think is an interesting vantage point.
Clearly, the subject matter is basis for greivance here. It's a religious painting containing a major religious symbol, and the substitution of cartoon characters for the original people in the work is viewed as offensive. No problem.
But... What if it was a painting of a 1950's american family sitting in their living room listening to an old radio theater broadcast. The message in this painting is the fabric of american culture. If we change the figures in this picture into the Simpsons, for instance, does it suddenly become offensive to american purists? I don't think so.
The point? I think it's just easier to be offended than it is to view things in a wider scope.
"It is quite telling that the lampooners wouldn’t dare try the same thing with an image of Mohammed (considered by Islam adherents a prophet, not a deity). Reason? They are scared about how devout Moslems might express their displeasure. Lesson? It’s only OK to mock someone’s religion if you can be reasonably sure they are non-violent."
Is there a famous painting of Mohammed that could be lampooned? I don't think lampooners across the world are afraid of making a parody of such an image. Rather, there's no such image to parody.
I would add, the reason I (and I'd wager most others) find this image appealing is because it's a parody of one of the most famous works of art in history. Not because we view it as a religious attack. I'm simply unaware of a similar well-known work of art, related to Islam, that could be parodied in some way that wasn't clearly meant as an attack on Islam.
Is Bluto or Whimpy Judas?
Maybe if Jebus ate his spinach he wouldn't have been nailed to a couple of boards!
Please explain how this is offensive... especially if you are "...not Christian, or Catholic… or whatever..."
This is about as sterile and non-offensive as it gets... especially on the internet!!! If this offends you, I would seriously reconsider logging back on.
If anything, the original painting portrays a "graven image" and is itself blasphemy, as well as the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Then again, I've never seen a religion more prone to cherry picking their holy texts than Christianity. Seriously, either admit that the writers of the Bible were fallible mortals or start stoning your disobedient children.
It's just like replacing the famous Andy Warhol picture of the beatles with different faces. Is that making fun of the Beatles? No. Is it making fun of Andy Warhol? No.
Just does not compute.
The issue that's it happens to be a da Vinci work is completely irrelevent. If someone else had painted it, feelings would remain the same. What bugs many Christians is that a respectful reverent image of their God is being lampooned. If the image was a Petunia Pig parody of da Vinci's even more famous "Mona Lisa" (La Gioconda), nobody would object. It's not the artist or how famous the work is, it's the subject.
It is quite telling that the lampooners wouldn't dare try the same thing with an image of Mohammed (considered by Islam adherents a prophet, not a deity). Reason? They are scared about how devout Moslems might express their displeasure. Lesson? It's only OK to mock someone's religion if you can be reasonably sure they are non-violent.
Also the assumption that all Muslims are violent makes about as much sense as the counter that all Christians are not. Centennial Olympic Park bombing? The Nuremberg Files hitlist?
It's a strong point you make. I want to bring up what I think is an interesting vantage point.
Clearly, the subject matter is basis for greivance here. It's a religious painting containing a major religious symbol, and the substitution of cartoon characters for the original people in the work is viewed as offensive. No problem.
But... What if it was a painting of a 1950's american family sitting in their living room listening to an old radio theater broadcast. The message in this painting is the fabric of american culture. If we change the figures in this picture into the Simpsons, for instance, does it suddenly become offensive to american purists? I don't think so.
The point? I think it's just easier to be offended than it is to view things in a wider scope.
Is there a famous painting of Mohammed that could be lampooned? I don't think lampooners across the world are afraid of making a parody of such an image. Rather, there's no such image to parody.