This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← 'Blasphemy' row over erotic shots

'Blasphemy' row over erotic shots - Comments

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 1 by Colwyn Abernathy

::sigh:: Why the religious find the human body offensive whilst touting "Be fruitful and multiply" is beyond me. Be fruitful and not think about it or look at nudies? Man, that's a fine tightrope to walk.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:22:00 UTC | #384218

mattincinci's Avatar Comment 2 by mattincinci

i guess they ought to make poor taste illegal also lol

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:23:00 UTC | #384219

Corylus's Avatar Comment 3 by Corylus

<!-- -->

Cornwall-based photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the priest in charge for blasphemy.
This struck me as peculiar, in that the offence of blasphemy was recently got rid of in England. I have tracked down a slightly more comprehensive article here, in The Sun.*

From the report
And now photographer Andy Craddock is the subject of legal action by the Diocese of Truro for trespass and not having permission to take photographs, accusing him of blasphemy.
So the legal action is for trespass and not blasphemy.

I actually have no problem with legal action being taken - if he was trespassing and taking photographs without permission then the Diocese has a case. They are within their rights to bring it. Just as any other organisation would be in similar circumstances. Justice is meant to be blind after all.

However, if the Diocese wishes to seek "punitive" type damages because of a 'blasphemy' angle then this is nonsensical. To whom will the damages be paid?

----

*Hah! Calling that paper 'comprehensive' is something I never thought I'd do.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:39:00 UTC | #384229

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 4 by Peacebeuponme

Corylus

This struck me as peculiar, in that the offence of blasphemy was recently got rid of in England.
Yes, I thought that, and thanks for updating me.
I actually have no problem with legal action being taken - if he was trespassing and taking photographs without permission then the Diocese has a case.
I'm minded to think the same, however, with one question. Who's church is it? I mean, as far as I am concerned, a lot of them are historical and culturally significant buildings (even in Leytonstone, where I live, there is a really nice one I enjoy seeing on the way to work), which should be the available to all the people of the country, including this gentleman.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:04:00 UTC | #384240

JIBJABBER's Avatar Comment 5 by JIBJABBER

According to my religious upbringing; sex is a shameful, vile, disgusting act you keep for the one you love.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:07:00 UTC | #384242

ukvillafan's Avatar Comment 7 by ukvillafan

How can one "trespass" in a public building? Presumably, if the church and its grounds were open, then public access is permitted?

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:15:00 UTC | #384247

beanson's Avatar Comment 6 by beanson

Pictures of a sado-masochistic nature were placed in the church, depicting a semi-naked man being tortured into a state of ecstasy

The model for the midly erotic picture was identified as a Mr J Christ 33

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:15:00 UTC | #384246

j.mills's Avatar Comment 8 by j.mills

Ho ho! Perhaps if he'd used fig leaves...?

CAN you trespass in a church, though? I thought they were kind of open to everyone to just wander in, ya know? I could see you might need permission to take photos on church property - but is that standard applied to everyone who takes a snap of a pretty organ [cough cough!], or just to this guy?

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:16:00 UTC | #384248

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 9 by DamnDirtyApe

I was going to make a feeble effort at humour related to this article, but i'm paranoid its going to appear on another article when I post it. Damn glitches on this site drive me crazy guys!

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:21:00 UTC | #384251

Corylus's Avatar Comment 10 by Corylus

Peace

Who's church is it? I mean, as far as I am concerned, a lot of them are historical and culturally significant buildings (even in Leytonstone, where I live, there is a really nice one I enjoy seeing on the way to work), which should be the available to all the people of the country, including this gentleman.
Interesting point, I don't know whether ownership of church buildings is a diocese or a Church of England thing. Some might also be owned by the government or the National Trust.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:53:00 UTC | #384265

BroughtyBoy's Avatar Comment 11 by BroughtyBoy

Not sure where I stand on this. I`d really like to see these photographs - couldn`t possibly pass any worthwhile opinion till I`ve had a long hard look at them. In private.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:55:00 UTC | #384268

andersemil's Avatar Comment 12 by andersemil

Funny! I just went to the beach today, and this particular beach has a seperate naturist section. Right behind the beach is a huge park where people can bbq and chill out under the big trees. I noticed today to my big surprise that there were more than a few muslim families sitting there, with women in burqas and children, all with a free view to fully naked people; it wasn't as if it was the only place to sit, there was a huge unoccupied area right beside them where they would not be able to see the beach... ?!???!?

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:22:00 UTC | #384282

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 13 by Carl Sai Baba

Comment #401715 by DamnDirtyApe

was going to make a feeble effort at humour related to this article, but i'm paranoid its going to appear on another article when I post it. Damn glitches on this site drive me crazy guys!


It posts your comment to the last page loaded (yes, that's stupid), so you can get around it by refreshing the page before entering/posting a comment.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:44:00 UTC | #384288

FXR's Avatar Comment 14 by FXR

If he'd take a series of twelve photos of a man going through increasingly violent stages of a torture process and promoted it to children I wonder what would the reaction have been?

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:22:00 UTC | #384300

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 15 by Border Collie

I'd thought about running naked through the parking lot of the Baptist church up the street this morning, but I was afraid that the old widows might chase me down and kidnap me.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:27:00 UTC | #384301

BroughtyBoy's Avatar Comment 16 by BroughtyBoy

Border Collie - you should`ve done it then.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:36:00 UTC | #384305

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 17 by lackofgravitas

every time I hear about the church and its dislike for erotica, I am reminded of Bernini's wonderful statue of the 'Ecstasy of St Theresa' http://tinyurl.com/nre76w

The Popes loved their soft-porn, don't see why the C of E is so against it. Apart from being English that is.

All together now: "Down with this sorta thing!"
:)

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:45:00 UTC | #384308

Follow Peter Egan's Avatar Comment 18 by Follow Peter Egan

Blasphemy. They're not even nude. what is it with the religious and their anti-sex brigade mentality?

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:48:00 UTC | #384311

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 19 by Diacanu

I need to see the pics to judge.
*Villain grin*

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:10:00 UTC | #384320

TheTrueScotsman's Avatar Comment 20 by TheTrueScotsman

Here is a link to the photographer's website and the pics.

http://www.neolestat.com/neolestat_church.htm

They are semi-nude so enter at your own risk.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:54:00 UTC | #384346

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 21 by Adrian Bartholomew

Thank you Sctosman. Have to say there are 2 or 3 that I absolutely adored and might get one of those as a print.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:17:00 UTC | #384360

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 22 by kaiserkriss

Sigh! This little pervert of a priest's world must be quite small, if nothing else that is happening around him upsets him. What a non issue.

What is it about so many people getting upset at the sight of a mammary gland. There are significantly more displays of poor taste on bill boards all over the place.

So a question to all those religious types: why did your god not provide humans with clothing at birth?

The whole sexual hang up with nudity seems to be man made. jcw

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:34:00 UTC | #384375

DanaBlue's Avatar Comment 23 by DanaBlue

"I noticed today to my big surprise that there were more than a few muslim families sitting there, with women in burqas and children, all with a free view to fully naked people; it wasn't as if it was the only place to sit, there was a huge unoccupied area right beside them where they would not be able to see the beach... ?!???!?"

They need to nurture their self-righteousness.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:38:00 UTC | #384377

LeeLeeOne's Avatar Comment 24 by LeeLeeOne

Sheesh - yet another victimless "crime"!

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:14:00 UTC | #384391

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 26 by Jos Gibbons

Many people are hung up over naked bodies. But, as one of my schoolteachers (a Christian, as it happens) observed, they're very common things - in fact, there as many of them as there are people. So maybe they're not worth all the worry.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:36:00 UTC | #384403

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 25 by mordacious1

If any other person has ever taken a picture of this church without permission and not been prosecuted, it certainly would be a plus for the defendent. Is there a sign that states, "No Pictures!"?

Also, after viewing the photos...artsy...get a life you dunderheaded ministers.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:36:00 UTC | #384402

j.mills's Avatar Comment 27 by j.mills

I have examined some of the pictures in the name of research and it seems a better use of a church than normal. I wouldn't mind 'communing' with those 'holy masses', et cetera, et cetera.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:06:00 UTC | #384416

dsainty's Avatar Comment 28 by dsainty

... or confessing your sins - in progress, et cetera, et cetera.

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:40:00 UTC | #384425

cam9976's Avatar Comment 29 by cam9976

The Catholic school-girl fetish is so overrated anyway...

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:48:00 UTC | #384429

nalfeshnee's Avatar Comment 30 by nalfeshnee

Sigh.

So how come this story gets published, and yet my suggested posting of the story about how the police force is giving headscarves to female officers to wear when addressing Muslims doesn't make it through?

I.e., this one: here

(Updated, the Telegraph website isn't working for me.)

I mean, I can understand how Texans slaughtering goats is more important, but erotic photo shoots in Truro?

Come on RD.net, stop fighting shy of Islam, you scaredy-cats!!

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:10:00 UTC | #384436