|
came4U -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/17/2008 1:56:23 PM)
|
quote:
If I see The Virgin Mary in a grease stain on my garage floor, its a miracle.
To some nuts, maybe. I don't advocate looking for any religious figures in a potato chip or a carpet stain either. (I don't even believe in the Portugese fable of Mary apparition of Fatima coming to the 3 c's in 1917).
quote:
If see The Virgin Mary in a photograph of an attractive young woman wearing a headscarf and standing in front of a stained glass window, its heresy?
No and yes. Heresy would imply a decision of action, thus purchase of such is what I consider heresy. How one views it is no different than if it were a bias by putting a black woman in a slave-like photog setting, it either upsets you morally or via it (the context of placement) being a distinctive cultural taboo as 'art'. It may be 'art' if in a gallery, but not likely more than a marketting ploy in this context of media. A money grabber, exploiting the enjoyment of use of a religious icon to those that may be angry at the church, God or the general premise of religion. aka gratifying or disassociative/indifference only if 1. you don't believe (Mary as Mother of Christ) and 2. you haven't been in that situation (Southern American slave) and assume it is a romantic ideal.
I would contain as much objection and offense by an objectification if a menorah candle (ie: dripping the wax on nipples) were used in some means in a sexual-based photog or published subscription of some kind (and I am not even Jewish).
If someone else is not offended or even would enjoy such activity, not my business. If I choose to be offended, I will be, without having to explain it to death.
|
|
|
|
