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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.