Here I was thinking desecrating sacred space was a Medieval Thing!

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.as...363&ocid=today

Edit: BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8179635.stm

I'd have to look it up, but I suspect this might constitute desecration, in which case you could argue the Church and graveyard need re-consecrating.

Honestly though, the mind boggles that some people are just so utterly dense. Honestly, I'm more shocked than outraged, but I just can't believe this photographer thought he'd get away with this.

While the whole scenario is obviously sick, has he technically broken any laws? Do the public not usually have access to church grounds? Is the church private property (or even crown property in England)?

"Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy"

Odd countries where you can be charged for Blasphemy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

"Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy"

Odd countries where you can be charged for Blasphemy....

---

Hah! I had just copy-pasted that exact same quote!

No need for me to post anything anymore then. Except maybe to add some fuel to the fire: there is no such thing as blasphemy, because the state does not decide who or what is the proper god. Unless one lives in a theocracy. This charge of blasphemy belongs to Iran or Saudi Arabia, not in 21st century Europe.

The photographer should not only get away with this, he should get commemorated for exposing the disgraceful arrogance of the state church, that still seeks to monopolize public morality by the use of state repression.



(Whether the photographer tresspassed, is another manner)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Hah! I had just copy-pasted that exact same quote!

No need for me to post anything anymore then. Except maybe to add some fuel to the fire: there is no such thing as blasphemy, because the state does not decide who or what is the proper god. Unless one lives in a theocracy. This charge of blasphemy belongs to Iran or Saudi Arabia, not in 21st century Europe.

The photographer should not only get away with this, he should get commemorated for exposing the disgraceful arrogance of the state church, that still seeks to monopolize public morality by the use of state repression.



(Whether the photographer tresspassed, is another manner)

---

Well, England is a monarchistic theocracy.

More seriously though, the photographer should not get away with this. The lack of respect, and awareness, is nothing less than shocking. I am very sure he did not ask because he knew permission would be refused. He said he knew some people would be offended, but he went ahead anyway.

So, either he meant to offend, or didn't care.

This is a matter of mutual respect, not theology.

Did he technically do anything wrong though? As in anything he could be prosecuted for? I would like to think that people cannot do such things on people's graves.

If it's just a matter of respect though, then nothing can be done. It's like sportsmanship in sport, you don't have to play by it, otherwise it just becomes rules.

What a non story.
Why not do a story about them poor buggers down by Rock who had to climb the dunes to get in through the roof by abseiling down a rope to perform the religious ceremony just to make sure the buried church remained consecrated ground.
Now if some "fetisist" wanted to walk down the beach or across the golf course to take some photos in that consecrated church yard then fair play to them , its quite a walk and the sand is soft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Did he technically do anything wrong though? As in anything he could be prosecuted for? I would like to think that people cannot do such things on people's graves.

If it's just a matter of respect though, then nothing can be done. It's like sportsmanship in sport, you don't have to play by it, otherwise it just becomes rules.

---

I suspect the desecration of Sacred Space comes under Blasphemy, so yes, he can be prosecuted. That would mean, however, that you could be prosecuted for bring raw meat within a churchyard.

I'm not sure I want him to be prosecuted, but one wonders if he shouldn't be fined. The law on this is still biased towards the CofE, which it shouldn't be; on the other hand I believe what he did was principally wrong and should be punished in some way.

What exactly is "erotic art" mentioned in the story? Is it art with sexual connotations, or is it a mere excuse for pornography? I do not see any advantage of making pornography in a church, so is it really that?

So if it is art, albeit erotic, then what is the problem? Now, the graveyard incident was perhaps of greater practical offense, but still... Or is there a law against making photoshoots without permission? And how exactly does one make a photoshoot in a church without the permission of the priest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

What exactly is "erotic art" mentioned in the story? Is it art with sexual connotations, or is it a mere excuse for pornography? I do not see any advantage of making pornography in a church, so is it really that?

So if it is art, albeit erotic, then what is the problem? Now, the graveyard incident was perhaps of greater practical offense, but still... Or is there a law against making photoshoots without permission? And how exactly does one make a photoshoot in a church without the permission of the priest?

---

Erotic art is porn with a soft focus lense, it is meant to arouse, note it says "fetishist and erotic art". Essentially, scantily clad women were cavorting around a church and graveyard.

As to why the Church was open; some priests leave their churches open so that they can be used, as churches. To be more explicit, they are left open at risk so that people have somewhere to pray. Sometimes they are dessecrated or vandalised, but not that often. In this case the priest may now start locking his church during daylight hours, depriving people of that facility.

This man abused the trust of the Priest and the Parish and used the Church for something he knew would offend. Churches are not public property, if they are open it is out of generosity.

I have seen the pics now, one is of a woman facing away, in the Church, she is wearing a throng, and nothing else but a pair of boots, another is of a topless woman on a gravestone, another of a woman as a Catholic schoolgirl, the angle almost looks up her skirt and she is standing with her legs open over a cross (seems to be standing on a side alter.

There are more, a woman in a rubber mask in front of the font, a topless woman is sitting in the pews, two women kissing in what is either the pulpuit or the chior stands, another woman with her legs on the alter rail in a sheer top and short palid skirt.

Shall I go on?

Edit: I will go on, there is a man pretending to be dead on the High Alter, with a woman draped over him.

Quote:

---

Essentially, scantily clad women were cavorting around a church and graveyard.

---

So it wasn't a case of scantily clad women being painted on the ceiling then:idea2:
Damn thats been donealready a thousand times, it isn't art its mimicry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So it wasn't a case of scantily clad women being painted on the ceiling then:idea2:
Damn thats been donealready a thousand times, it isn't art its mimicry.

---

In rubber masks?

Could a blasphemy law actually stick nowadays?

I like it when archaic laws pop up every once in a while, like that witch that was put on trial during WW2. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

In rubber masks?

---

That would be the temple of Vulcan.:2thumbsup:

But hey maybe they would if they had the method of working rubber back then, :yes:
Tell you what Wigferth , head off down to your local cathedral and see the art down there, yours ain't bad as it seemed to largely escape the worst of the ravages against degenrate symbolism you lot went through after that holy king had a bit of a problem with fidelity in marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That would be the temple of Vulcan.:2thumbsup:

But hey maybe they would if they had the method of working rubber back then, :yes:
Tell you what Wigferth , head off down to your local cathedral and see the art down there, yours ain't bad as it seemed to largely escape the worst of the ravages against degenrate symbolism you lot went through after that holy king had a bit of a problem with fidelity in marriage.

---

I don't think we have any nudes, actually. Nor do I think that Church art was generally designed to tittlilate, and none of this has anything to do with the CofE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

abseiling down a rope

---

Interesting use of german but if I'm not mistaken the correct english word would be to rappel...oh snap, that's actually english, nvm. :sweatdrop:

Not sure about the actual topic, of course the guy is being rude, but whether the government should punish him depends on whether he broke english law.

Quote:

---

none of this has anything to do with the CofE.

---

So it wasn't the CofE who whitewashed over the paintings and defaced the carvings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So it wasn't the CofE who whitewashed over the paintings and defaced the carvings?

---

Actually, most of the damage here was done by the Puritans during Cromwell's era. In fact, a lot of the most serious stuff, particularly the defacing the statutry was Cromwellian.

Anyway, the CofE really dates from the reign of Elizabeth II, so the answer would be "no, not really".

In any case, it has nothing to do with the current Church, or the Church 300 years ago.

Quote:

---

Actually, most of the damage here was done by the Puritans during Cromwell's era

---

So that puts paid to the topic title as the British medieval period is generally defined as ending with Bosworth:yes:

I would like PVC to show me the pics before I make a judgment. But already I don't see the issue in taking pictures of nature's most beautiful work of art (the female body) with some of mankind's most beautiful art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So that puts paid to the topic title as the British medieval period is generally defined as ending with Bosworth:yes:

---

I was thinking rather more of the Medieval penchant for changing money, selling raw meat, and having sex on alters. People did those things, it seems to have been virtually pathological.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I would like PVC to show me the pics before I make a judgment.

---

Lol, just tell him you want some porn and stop making silly excuses :laugh4::laugh4:


But what PVC mentioned did not sound like art to me, but as I said earlier, an excuse for porn. The photographer stuck the "art" label only because if he bluntly stated "we wanna make some porn in a church", it would be greatly offensive. But why of all the places in the world a church??


EDIT: another article said the pictures were for S&M fetish. I wiki-ed it and it gave no articles. What is S&M?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Lol, just tell him you want some porn and stop making silly excuses :laugh4::laugh4:


But what PVC mentioned did not sound like art to me, but as I said earlier, an excuse for porn. The photographer stuck the "art" label only because if he bluntly stated "we wanna make some porn in a church", it would be greatly offensive. But why of all the places in the world a church??


EDIT: another article said the pictures were for S&M fetish. I wiki-ed it and it gave no articles. What is S&M?

---

I wouldn't quite say it was S&M, what I will say is that the website has an 18+ front page. If you want to see the pics do what I did, take the guy's name off the BBC article and google him. I am quite certain the pictures are not Org-safe, even for the Babe Thread (well, you could get away with a couple of them in there).

S&M is whips and bondage, Sadomachoism.

Alright, I have been to his website, the majority of pictures this guy takes is not really controversial. I would say this church batch he has made is probably has more nudity in it then all the other sets he has combined.

Speaking of re-consecrating desecrated spaces - has the Church of England re-consecrated all those abuse-ridden parish churches and industrial-scale rape camps yet? Will they ever or won't they bother about that?

They sure didn't find their way to the police as fast as they did in this photographer's case.

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/ar...ised-abuse-ca/

Wait, what? You find this offending?

I've seen the pictures, and yes, it's art. It might be considered tasteless for religious folks, but blasphemy? Ridiculous.

Just FYI, goths people quite often take pictures in graveyards, churches and other religious places. Seriously, it's the basic step if you wanna start a career as a goth-model. You can find such pictures all over the place on facebook, myspace and other assorted stupid so-called social webistes.

Heck, churches and graveyards have been used by artists for centuries. Each time, people have been screaming 'blasphemy', 'heresy' and whatnot. Most of the pictures I took in New-England are pictures of various graveyards. I took pictures of my back-then girlfriend there, and I would gladily have taken pictures of here wearing only underwear, because 1 - graveyards are often nice and romantic places and 2 - a nice woman's body is definitely nice and romantic.

The pictures are not offending, neither the photograph nor the girls descrated anything AFAIK (nothing was destroyed or vandalized during the shots). Get over it. And erotism is not porn, just like the goth/fetishism is not S&M.
Furthermore, as said a few times, you shouldn't be allowed to sue someone for blasphemy in western europe.

I will side with the church on this one...

Most pics are harmless, however, some are not. Topless girl in mini-skirt laying on the altar, with another girl riding her?

Most people know I am no fan of the church...However, even idiocy you have to show some respect if enough people believe in it.

I wouldnt mind if the photographer got fined, hell, I wouldnt mind even if he got sent to jail. Mainly because the pictures were rubbish.

Just my oppinion, of course :)

I think as a sign of decency, you should ask permission before using church property (which is, correct me if I am wrong, still privately owned property) in a way that the church might object to. There are boundaries... if I go into a church, I shut my big yap because I know I might offend someone. I might have the freedom to say what I want, but it's not my house. If the church objects to certain kinds of expression, you don't have to listen to them. However, you should also leave them out of it. You don't have to agree with them to respect certain boundaries.


As for the legal issue; "blasphemy" should be removed from all public legal codes. That is one thing I won't compromise on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Speaking of re-consecrating desecrated spaces - has the Church of England re-consecrated all those abuse-ridden parish churches and industrial-scale rape camps yet? Will they ever or won't they bother about that?

They sure didn't find their way to the police as fast as they did in this photographer's case.

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/ar...ised-abuse-ca/

---

Excellent question, the answer is I don't know but I believe they should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Wait, what? You find this offending?

I've seen the pictures, and yes, it's art. It might be considered tasteless for religious folks, but blasphemy? Ridiculous.

---

Offense is defined by the people offended, not the person taking the action. In this case, yes I am offended by nudity and simulated sex-acts in a place of worship. Further:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC

He told BBC News: "I can understand why some people would find them offensive and inappropriate.
"But the general feedback has been very positive.
"I never wanted to offend. This is done as art and shows the beauty of women."

---

I think he very much wanted to offend, this has got him a great deal of publicity, I think the whole project was cynically orchastrated to hurt the parishoners and cause offence for his own personal gain.

Quote:

---

Just FYI, goths people quite often take pictures in graveyards, churches and other religious places. Seriously, it's the basic step if you wanna start a career as a goth-model. You can find such pictures all over the place on facebook, myspace and other assorted stupid so-called social webistes.

Heck, churches and graveyards have been used by artists for centuries. Each time, people have been screaming 'blasphemy', 'heresy' and whatnot. Most of the pictures I took in New-England are pictures of various graveyards. I took pictures of my back-then girlfriend there, and I would gladily have taken pictures of here wearing only underwear, because 1 - graveyards are often nice and romantic places and 2 - a nice woman's body is definitely nice and romantic.

---

That is a personal justifcation, it does not excuse this. If you want to take pictures of naked women in a Churchyard or Church you have the right to try, the Church, however, has the right to stop you because they have ownership and you don't.

If you enter another man's house you follow his rules, enter a house of the Church, you follow the Church's rules. Simply because the Church is left open out of generosity does not absolve you from observing the basics of human decency.

Quote:

---

The pictures are not offending, neither the photograph nor the girls descrated anything AFAIK (nothing was destroyed or vandalized during the shots). Get over it. And erotism is not porn, just like the goth/fetishism is not S&M.
Furthermore, as said a few times, you shouldn't be allowed to sue someone for blasphemy in western europe.

---

I am offended, so are others, so they are offensive. I would say that you could make a very solid arguement that a simulated sex-act on an alter was desecration. At the very least it is deeply offensive, you wouldn't pretend to have sex on someone's dining room table, on their best table cloth, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I will side with the church on this one...

Most pics are harmless, however, some are not. Topless girl in mini-skirt laying on the altar, with another girl riding her?

Most people know I am no fan of the church...However, even idiocy you have to show some respect if enough people believe in it.

I wouldnt mind if the photographer got fined, hell, I wouldnt mind even if he got sent to jail. Mainly because the pictures were rubbish.

Just my oppinion, of course :)

---

Thank you, this is fundamentally why I think he should be legally sanctioned.