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

[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/

[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.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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 tend to agree with that. I too visited the photographer's website and he is definitely not some porn director. His other photographs show a sense of taste and style. Now, the full frontal nudity was rather distasteful in a church, but I have not seen any genital exposure, so why go berserk over a pair of mammary glands? In Early High Mediaeval, I recollect reading about a style of women's clothing similar to the Minoan, were women would have cutaways exposing breasts. That was completely normal back then, and not at all vulgar.

The most offending part of his photoshoot was the motive, and most people tend to jump at the conclusion he was just making some porn, which he was not. He was making art, and I see no reason a church cannot be receptive to that. When Michelangelo and Boticelli painted their nudes, in church, often with pagan undertones in the case of the latter, some, even many, thought of it as an ultimate sacrilege. Let us not be a Girolamo Savonarola with his Bonfire of the Vanities. Those days should be over. As well as the "blasphemy" charge, which sounds preposterous and outdated.

Still, just how illegal is it to do things in a church without permission? What laws, if any, govern this?

[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 :)

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[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.

[Meneldil]

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.

Yes, you have every right to be offended. Anyone has the right to be offended by anything he wants. That's doesn't make the offend valuable. I'm offended by stupidity, but I won't be trying to sue every stupid people I meet.

{Bashing/making fun of} {religion/the Church} in a place which bears a strong religious meaning is a millenia old behavior. It's not any more offending than drunk idiots having a beer while sitting on a tomb.

During the middle-age, graveyards and church courts were often used by prostitutes, merchants, comedians. Most duels took place in cimetaries until the 17th. I'm not even talking about the romantic wave and its hundred of graveyard-based love scenes.

Each time, some people were obviously offended, while most of the population didn't really give a damn.

I personally find some of the pictures tasteless (I also find some of them really nice). It's obviously not porn, but the author went a bit too far IMO.
However, you can argue however you want, but simulating a sex-act for a picture is not desecration, at least outside of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. If the priest is going to sue that guy on the basis of 'unauthorized pictures', then we might as well start suing the millions of people who take pictures of graveyards and churches, because nutjobs while obviously find a way to find any damn given picture offensive.

Charging the guy because he entered a private property without being allowed there is fine in my book. Unneeded, but understandable.
Charging him for blasphemy and desecration is a bit too much 18th centuri-ish for my taste.

[Jolt]

Haha, people want his head on a pike over some pictures about some church. Imagining I create a cult with my house as its defining place to pray and some random guy decides to take nude pictures in front of my home, should he get 6 months in jail? What if he photoshopped the background of that one church and still made a photomontage? Would he still be entitled to prison?

One thing is taking photographs of a site (Unless the place expressly prohibits the taking of images.), another thing is actually dessecrating (e.g. physically destroying, damaging) a site.
Pah-leeze it is the most ridiculous concept I ever saw anyone being trialed over, since the Inquisition. But then again I live under a secular state so what do I know. A lot more people show a lot less respect with society and the world they live in, and nothing happens to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

During the middle-age, graveyards and church courts were often used by prostitutes, merchants, comedians. Most duels took place in cimetaries until the 17th. I'm not even talking about the romantic wave and its hundred of graveyard-based love scenes.

Each time, some people were obviously offended, while most of the population didn't really give a damn.

All of these things deconsecrate the ground people are burried in. This is what desecration is, an act which makes that which is holy, unholy. Simulating a sex act on an alter arguably does just that.

As I said, it is not a question of offense, but of desecration.

[Aemilius Paulus]

"Desecration" and "blasphemy" are not concepts most non-religious folk find understandable. As an atheist, I am inclined to say nothing holy on this Earth exists, and if it did, it would be something made by God, and not us men. Men are sinful, anything they make is not holy. Even the Bible affirms that much. It also contradicts itself (how typical of it) by mentioning the Temple of Solomon and the Ark which were unquestionably holy. But generally, this was about it. The Bible also employs "holy" in the metaphorical sense, but not directly when pertaining to other things.

I do not believe that a Church is holy, especially given all that has been done by its priests, by its builders, by the Church, and etc. Meneldil had a point in his previous post. Not to mention, what happened to the so-called "Protestant Principle"?? The treatment of a church as if it is worthy of great veneration and is holy, just as the iconoclasm and the infallibility of the Bible, seems to contradict the Protestant Principle. I know I am over-applying it a bit, or even more than a bit, but your treatment of a church, PVC, strikes me as rather when the Protestants originally wished to root out.

You know theology better than me, with your education, so think about it. You know the Protestants wished to put an end to the manner in which the Catholics would suddenly make and treat things as holy while the only thing that should have been holy and worthy of such treatment is God/Holy Trinity. Protestants saw that as no more than idolatry under a guise.

Now, my argument certainly overstretches common sense, which dictates prudent and conservative behaviour in a church, but still... Perhaps Christians should focus less on earthly things, the code of behaviour in certain institutions, and their treatment but more on the ultimate goal, in the Heavens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly there is confusion here over what I am talking about. Partly this is my fault, because I used the word "Holy" instead of the word "sacred".

Though the issue of usage is more complicated, nevermind about that though.

Sacred: This means something which is set apart, it is a concept common to all religions with temples, also in othere sheres. Lovers are often said to be sacred because their shared expereince is unique to them and inviolate.

In the Church we consecrate a space (make it sacred) by marking its boundaries and performing certain rites. This identifies it as a place set apart, no longer completely a part of world around it. We do this so that the place in which we worship is not used for other, earthly purposes. The selling of goods and the shedding of blood are forbidden, as is sexual activity, all manner of other things, swearing etc.

Desecration is an act so heinous that it is considered to pollute the sacred space and undo the consecration, at which point it ceases to be a place apart and becomes merely another building. Desecration does not have to do with damaging the building itself, because the building is not sacred, the space it occupies is.

So Jolt makes a non point, simply because he destroyed nothing and left no obvious marks does not mean he did not desecrate the Church. If he has then, theologically, the offence is grevious and the appropriate punishment has not even been mentioned, and will certainly not be used.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not believe that a Church is holy, especially given all that has been done by its priests, by its builders, by the Church, and etc. Meneldil had a point in his previous post. Not to mention, what happened to the so-called "Protestant Principle"?? The treatment of a church as if it is worthy of great veneration and is holy, just as the iconoclasm and the infallibility of the Bible, seems to contradict the Protestant Principle. I know I am over-applying it a bit, or even more than a bit, but your treatment of a church, PVC, strikes me as rather when the Protestants originally wished to root out.

PVC is Anglo-Catholic, he is more similar in his theology to the Catholic Church than most other Protestant denominations. The Anglican Church itself says it is a "via media" between Protestantism and Catholicism, and being a High Church Anglican Philipvs learns more towards the latter of the two.

At least that's what I've gathered, he can of course speak for himself, but I get +1 to my post count.

EDIT: Gah, he beat me to it!