Erect statue has British gallery in court

[cnredd]

Erect statue has British gallery in court

NEWCASTLE, England, July 27 (UPI) -- A statue portraying Jesus Christ in a state of sexual arousal should not be displayed at a prominent art gallery in Britain, prosecutors contend.

Government prosecutors, in taking action against the Baltic Cent re for Contemporary Art in the British town of Gates head, maintain the statue by Chinese-born artist Terence Koh violates decency laws and Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, the Daily Mail reported Saturday. A hearing will be held in September, the British newspaper said.

The public order section details offenses caused by an individual's actions or decisions that cause harassment, alarm or distress in another individual.

The Rev. Christopher Warren, who serves at the Roman Catholic cathedral of St Mary's in nearby Newcastle, said the statue does cause stress for Catholics.

"For Christians the image of Jesus is very special and to interpret it in a sexualized way is an affront to what we hold dear," Warren said.

I'd just like to point out that there have been no mass protests where tens of thousands of Christians holding machetes are calling for executions...

A little "pre-emptive attack to moral equivalance" of you will...

[saltwn]

It might cause

harassment, alarm or distress ...

to some people if it was an "erect" statue of anybody.

I'd almost miss the rapture to see the look on some people's faces when he comes back though.

[dabateman]

It's a statue... You aren't to have effigies of Him anyway as it is a form of idol worship, or that was the strict interpretation I was brought up in.

Get over it. It's not being displayed in church. Religious symbols are displayed in public, mockeries should be as well. I don't advocate censorship on either side.

[saltwn]

Originally Posted by dabateman

It's a statue... You aren't to have effigies of Him anyway as it is a form of idol worship, or that was the strict interpretation I was brought up in.

Get over it. It's not being displayed in church. Religious symbols are displayed in public, mockeries should be as well. I don't advocate censorship on either side.

Correct. But I shouldn't have been so tongue in cheek with my assessment above.
Public "art" displaying a man with a hard on is the last (I think) unbreached code of anything civilized.
It is in a gallery and that is appropriate. People who wish to see it (and looks like it's been publicized adequately) should be allowed to do so without harassment.
And those offended by such as this can stay away.
If it was a public display in a city park, that would be a different matter entirely.
I can see me and my grandchildren feeding the pigeons around the statue's feet, with me telling them the Bible stories. Ad libbing, I could point out how God even provided a rack for us to hang our sweaters on.

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by saltwn

Correct. But I shouldn't have been so tongue in cheek with my assessment above.
Public "art" displaying a man with a hard on is the last (I think) unbreached code of anything civilized.
It is in a gallery and that is appropriate. People who wish to see it (and looks like it's been publicized adequately) should be allowed to do so without harassment.
And those offended by such as this can stay away.
If it was a public display in a city park, that would be a different matter entirely.
I can see me and my grandchildren feeding the pigeons around the statue's feet, with me telling them the Bible stories. Ad libbing, I could point out how God even provided a rack for us to hang our sweaters on.

Well true... It's not a public park piece, but it could go in a public gallery. They categorize things generally.