One aspect that I've found fascinating about the impassioned discussions around the recent controversy concerning Bill Henson's photographic art: nowhere is there to be found any defence of Henson from openly Christian (nor indeed any other religious) art critic or afficionado.

There's been numerous negative comments about Henson, his art and those who appreciate and defend it, over the various OLO discussions on this topic. Some of these have come from openly Christian contributors at OLO. However, most of the objections and indignation about Henson are curiously, almost stridently secular: variations on the theme of "what about the children", rather than invoking anything overtly Christian in the current confected controversy.

On the other hand, each and every argument in support of Henson's art is implicitly if not avowedly secular. It seems striking that there appears to be absolutely no defence of Henson's art from a Christian perspective at OLO or elsewhere - nor, indeed, from any other religious perspective.

I find this quite curious. Aren't there any art lovers out there who believe in Jesus who are prepared to go into bat for Bill?

Well_well_well! at_LAST mr Morgan brings a thought out topic for discussion rather than snide, smelly suspicion and sniping :)

Putting it in down to earth language Hoo-blardy-ray!

CJ.. for my part, I don't think I've actually condemned Hensons art, but raised questions about his motives in an 'if'-then.. scenario.

If you want a "Christian" perspective on 'his art' that would be impossible. On 'particular' works.. it would be possible.

Nakedness of children on public display is an area which always causes heated debate, and as you point out, most of the attack has come thus far from secular sources against secular supporters.

The only references I know of regarding 'nakedness' and its moral implications comes from the old Testament and Noah. When he was drunk, his son Ham saw his nakedness and the other 2 brothers, entered his tent and with their backs to him, and covered Noah.

In the New Testament, Revelation has a passage about the spiritual condition Laodicaean_Church described as "blind poor and naked", but this again seems more about 'lacking the spiritual wherewithal' rather than declaring nakedness 'evil'.

The nakedness of small children would normally be a non issue, as we all have pics of our offspring in that state I guess.

The only problem with nakedness is how it is portrayed and 'context'.
I personally can't see any beneficial purpose in displaying naked children of pubescent age as I think the beginnings of breasts and hips hold the greatest reproductive promise to a man. (the younger she is, the more offspring she can bear)

Jesus said "It is not what goes into a man which defiles him but what comes out, from the heart" and in the list of things included was 'sexual immorality'.

Given that he also mentioned "Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery with her"... the Christian position would be that anything which hastens people towards improper lust is not exactly good.

I think you secularists can beat each other to death over this one :)
But I'll be interested in any other Christian contribution for sure.
...enjoy

CJ perhaps the dearth of "Christian" commentary is because it's not a theological issue. I certainly defended Henson here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003100.html, here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003107.html and here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003116.html.

It is a free speech issue, and you'll find that the most persuasive arguments for that were made out by Christians starting in the Renaissance and including Martin Luther and John Milton.

Forgive me for asking BOAZ, but I'm extremely curious.

Given the content and volume of your contributions to this forum every day, do you do anything else but read the bible and sit in front of your computer all day dispensing your religious philosophies ?

This reminds me of the Christians that went around breaking the penises off naked statues centuries ago because they were personally offended. (one of the Popes?)

from DB

Given that he also mentioned "Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery with her"...

well that assumes the pervert, the woman or both are married??

what if married to each other? it cant be adultery

This Bible sounds a bit dodgy to me

Ohhh CJMorgan.

Is there such a thing as an openly Christian art critic?

Anyone who is a born again Christian will have his focus entirely on Jesus Christ, The Word, witnessing, prayer and fellowship.
These are the "circle of life" for committed christians.

Art is a dark underworld... full of evil spirit influences...drugs, booze, sexual perversion etc.

Who, who is on-fire for The Lord, ever goes there with any seriousness?
There are many who are going to call The Lord, Lord on the last day... but simply will not make it.

Committed born again Christian art critics dont exist.
Many art critics who refer to themselves as christians because they live in a so-called christian country, will exist.

"Art is a dark underworld... full of evil spirit influences...drugs, booze, sexual perversion etc."

Once again Gibo demonstrates the amazing lack of understanding and his willingness to accept lies that comes from having a " focus entirely on Jesus Christ, The Word, witnessing, prayer and fellowship. "

It seems such a small step (if any) from Gibo's approach to running round an art gallery with a chisel and tin or paint (or maybe a burning brand). Thankfully much of the church is somewhat better informed than Gibo.

CJ in answer to your question, given the attempts to tie Hansons work to child sex abuse and the history of the organised church on that front it's always going to be difficult for any official response that appears to support what others claim is child abuse. It's an issue which has little to do with their mission and where comment taken out of context could remind people of a history most are trying to put behind them.

The extremists will generally lack the insight to see the complexities of the issue and the moderates such as Graham won't have the same history of belting people with their christianity.

R0bert

"Who, who is on-fire for The Lord, ever goes there with any seriousness?"

gosh, I never realised you "Christians" had a hard-on for Jesus

so getting back to the Catholic Priest who sexually abused me as a 12 year old at Confession, had he fallen out of lust/love for Jesus?

was he too an adulterer?

and do kids have more fun in Infantry as adults have in adultery?

religion seems a bit to complex for my logical mind

Gibo,

I don't know what you are going on about. I am a Born Again Christian, somewhat progressive, I'm not active in the arts world but I am involved in the nudist movement (as are quite a number of Christians, although they don't usually let people in their churches know). I think the Bill Henson photos are fine. They are in no way offensive. Far more harm was done the the girl in the photo by comments from Kevin Rudd and others calling them "Revolting".

The human body is God's creation and is nothing to be ashamed of.

By the way Gibo, I know who you are. I actually discovered this website doing Google searches on authors you had mentioned on your posts on the news.com.au forum. As I previously stated Gibo, I'm not an art critic, but just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I can't involve myself in secular entertainment.

SNAKE... I better cruise off for a while :)

Right now.. I'm post cuppa.. b4 that I'd been preparing components for a job.. zip to the puter.. quick post.. back to prep work.. Most of my posts are done between 5:00am and 7:00am.

DD.. regarding child abuse.. please take the trouble read these words of Jesus:

Mark 9:42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell...

I think from that you can predict the end of that mans life if he does not repent in sack-cloth and ashes from the heart.

Perhaps there is a message for Henson in that passage also? I don't know.. but he does.

ROBERT.. if we GBs wax eloquent about Hensons art.. we will be called 'wowsers' and 'fundamentalist creeps'....

Which of course is pretty strange when there are secularists out there saying the same thing.

But...that's the Christian life. John the Baptist lost his head over his criticism of a dodgy marriage relationship of a big shot.

Jesus Christ wants His people on fire... not pansying around with the world including a fallen world of artists etc.
If not... His Promise is to spit you out of His Mouth.
He wants no lukewarm.
As christians we cant dance with a half-hearted commitment.
Soon the end of the great spirit war wraps up.
We know this because we can see it in the increase in wars, earthquakes, famines and diseases spoken about in Luke chapter 21/Matthew chapter 24 and in the rise of the worlds final dictator and his rotten microchip on either the right hand or forehead system of watching everyone via satellite.
Its in Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 and "they" are starting to chip folks now.
We are not to receive that mark/chip... 14:9-11.
Hell is the reward (check out Mary K Baxter a divine revelation of hell and mark of the beast 666).
Committed christians need to be out telling the world that Jesus is coming soon.

So youre a nuddie Steel Mann.
I think you can do better.
Its lukewarm and representative of lesser commitment...i.e. lukewarm to cold.
Do you have a taste for porn too... and extra-marital sex?
A nuddie is no different than being a gay as far as many of us other born again christians are concerned.
So you know me?
Ho-hum...so does half the world and many here.

My impression is that the majority of Christian comment at OLO is extremist. Steel Mann is more representative of your average Christian I think.

You get a misleading picture of religious views in broader society in these forums, which is clear if you do the sums. Look at any thread about an emotive topic and you'll find OLO's extremists using up their daily limit. BD's writing style sticks out like the proverbial dogs' and entries are usually very long, which makes for long but predictable threads.

There are only a few of them, but they talk a lot. Other people have to scroll until their fingers fall off just to get a word in.

A related point: there are other people here who can't resist arguing with them, which means their tendency to hijack discussion works every time. It also means that religious angles on topics take up even more thread space. I'm all for democratic participation, but there must be others like me who would get more involved here if they weren't put off by this lot.

It's a terrible shame. Other sites discussed more diverse apsects of the Henson thing - law, media, politics, commercialisation, all sorts of things. But here it was all about an extremely narrow religious view.

The reason it seems all Christians had a particular view is because of the particular Christians on these threads, who are clearly not representative of Christians generally.

Gibo,

You may consider me lukewarm if you wish, true Christians like me have a word for you too, Jesus used it on the people that bothered him most, Pharisees. You would have to be the biggest religious nut in Australia and are doing true Christianity a lot of damage. Don't judge me for being a nudist, for all you know there could be some among your closest friends in your church. No, I am not into pornography. In fact, I consider pornography offensive (although I think people should have the right to look at if they wish, provided it doesn't involve children). I do not consider nudity to be pornography (Therefore Bill Henson's work is not pornography, as has now been confirmed by the Office of Film and Literature Classification), just as I do not consider the nudist activities I participate in to be sexual behaviour. The anti-nude attitude in most Christian Churches does not originate in the Bible, but from Victorian England. It's only Christians in English speaking countries that have a major problem with it. Many paintings and other art works found in old churches in Europe show Christians being baptized in the nude. (Obviously some Christians are into art!!). As far as being gay is concerned, I am not gay but have many aquaitances that are. Being gay Gibo, is no more a sin than stealing or lying so remember when you point the finger, you have 3 pointing back at you.

'My impression is that the majority of Christian comment at OLO is extremist. '

Many regard my comments as extreme (I am happy to live with that). Interesting though that many now regard Mr Rudd's comments as extreme. He called the taking photographs of nude young kids as revolting. You would be stretching the truth greatly to call Mr Rudd a conservative among Christian ranks. The truth is that when people want to defend the indefensible (child porn) they attack anyone with an opposing view. Several posters including the author of this post are experts at this very thing.

Hi to all the forgotten australians

i think it is not christian and it is a disgrace having children potrayed like this ,,

would any of you in here put you child on the wall of a art gallery naked ,

i know i wouldn;t ,

their are a lot of sick people out their

has this opened the gates for the pedophiles ,

to use these pictures as a legal loop hole for their peverted sickness

regards huffnpuff

"their [sic] are a lot of sick people out their [sic]

has this opened the gates for the pedophiles ,

to use these pictures as a legal loop hole for their peverted sickness "

--

exactly what I postulated re Germaine Greer being totally free from any saction with her book, purely because of being female

Chainsmoker *cough*.... *cough*...*bark*....

says:

"Steel Mann is more representative of your average Christian I think."

err..no :) he is representative of YOUR popular notion of what YOU want Christians to be... *poke*....

Simple solution.. READ THE OWNERS MANUAL :)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=1&version=31

Art is for viewing as a work of asthetic beauty. I have collected some landscapes works from a local Christian artist and friend. He like myself would find that photographing prepubescent teenage girls would have a motive rather more in the realm of voyerism than of universally accepted beauty. Such work could hang in a teenage girls bedroom but not in a public place; especially if the child is known to the male displaying the photographs. It would be interesting to know of the sexual preferences of Hensen. Does he have an intimate and committed relationship to a wife?

You know, huffnpuff's post here proves I was right in the other thread. Too bad you all chose to admonish me for daring to call his raving alarmism out. This topic is about Henson, huffnpuff. You have no sympathy at all from me for exploiting your agenda and abuse in the manner of hetty.

Actually boaz, Chainsmoker's right, and I think you know he is.

Tell me - most Christians you meet - are they as fervent as you?

Even if you answer yes to that, do you really think that most of the Christian population is?

I think you know that's blatantly false, so I think your last post is more indicative of self delusion than Chainsmoker's.

As CS suggests, I think I'll indulge in less troll feeding if I can help myself.

But here's one last feast for you. Garn, have a gander at this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html

I make no comment.

.... Here fluffy, meet the pigeons.

Chainsmoker You write 'The reason it seems all Christians had a particular view is because of the particular Christians on these threads, who are clearly not representative of Christians generally.'

I finally agree with you on something. I suspect the majority of people in this country (Christian or non Christian) could not give a stuff about Henson. In fact most people probably don't really care about child abuse or porn or environmental issues unless they can see it affects them directly. I asked some uni graduates who they were voting for and why last year only to be told they did not know or really care.

I do disagree however with you view of Steel Man. After being an active Christian for longer than I like to think I have not even heard of this guy/girl/dude.

Other studies find the same thing TRTL, but there are also some very intelligent god botherers around - though not many of them frequent OLO forums - and IQ is not a terribly reliable measure of intelligence. Academic intelligence yes, general intelligence no, thus the figures on academics.

I tend to go with the school of thought that says religion is a crutch (is that a pun in the context of this thread?) for people with insecurities, a sense of lack in their lives or some other kind of existential crisis.

On troll feeding, it's easy to avoid. Picture this:

One of them makes a comment. You respond and they get all excited about the attention or the belief that they're on the cusp of converting you or that they're somehow relevant.

Their white robes are glistening with sweat, their long beards twitching, their fingertips charged with lightning (in their imaginations) as they crouch over the keyboard, the eyes maddening, sandals tapping on the floor, maybe a bit of spittle, their crucifix fridge magnets are rattling, perhaps a little self flagellation takes place, their eyeballs spin around in the sockets with ecstacy.

Then they subject you and the rest of us to a lengthy and incoherent response which makes deliberative democracy a joke. Do you really want to be responsible for that?

I was raised in a religious free family and have stayed an atheist and am very against Bill Henson and have been against him for quite a few years. I am also an artist and am not the only artist who feels this way, I have spoken to religious, atheist , left and right wing artists who find it repugnant.

Steel whilst I stayed out of "the gang" on the other thread huffnpuff's post here does not prove your attack on the other thread correct. It's almost on topic, is not attacking any other posters etc.
I happen to disagree with huffnpuff on this issue and I'm not personally a great fan of huffnpuff's writing style but neither is a sign of madness.

You do your own case harm by personal attacks on someone like huffnpuff who has been through a great deal and who is trying to do something about it.

I agree with you on the broader issue but you've picked the wrong target in huffnpuff. Save it for those trying to do harm rather than decent people who you disagree with such as huffnpuff. If you want to be nasty there are several much more deserving candidates for your attention on these threads (no list necessary I'm sure).

R0bert

Dear CJ,

I didn't question the talent of Bill Henson. Nor did I have a problem with his photographing nudes. What I said was that I understood why some people would feel considerable unease about the fact that Henson had chosen as his subject matter, 12 to 13 year old children, and the fact that he chose to photograph them naked.

I believe it was Bronwyn who said that art has to be looked at in the context of the time in which it was created. And the time that we currently live in - where child abuse is so prevalent as is familial abuse - should help us understand why some people would feel uneasy about Henson's work. I also added that I did not expect others to agree with me.

As Graham pointed out - this is not a religious issue. At least not for me, and many others.

CJ while not art critics, many of my Christian friends have disagreed with me (an atheist) about Henson's work. For me it is not a religious issue at all but a line between the rights of artistic expression and freedoms vs the protection of children and sexualising of children in whatever medium (both indirectly and directly via the art in question).

Religion might perhaps influence perspective but one cannot assume that all Christians are the same in the same way that feminists might be categorized. But I know you know that. :)

Perhaps well known Christian art critics are less vocal because of fear of alienating other Christians or perhaps they are finding their own 'line' a bit blurred on this issue. Who knows?

Art and artistic taste can only exist in an arena of tolerance.

If it is not, we all lose.

Degenerate art was vilified by Hitler in the 1930’s. The work of Gustav Klimt (a favorite of mine, among the contemporaries) was ridiculed.

Art as defined, prescribed and approved by the Church of Rome dominated the work up and through the renaissance, a supposedly Christian action no different in outcome to that of Hitler (mind you the art of the castrati was also much appreciated and pursued by the same religious organization, hence recruitment of some poor boys to surrender their reproductive options for the exclusive entertainment of cardinals).

We, as people, are more tolerant and have moved away from both the dogma of Rome and the dictates of Berlin.

We, as people, can only expect our individual rights to be respected to the extent we respect the right of others to dissent.

I accept the right of Christians to hold views and possibly dissent with what I believe and will defend their right to express that dissent.

A lot of so called art, the shlock which hangs in galleries and ‘installation’ pieces, the product of creative plumbers, does nothing for me, similarly, a lot of music does nothing either.

I will express my disapproval to the quality of the piece and will change radio station to listen to what I prefer and avoid sermons from the pulpit but I do not seek the impose the refinement of my taste on the lovers of shlock, the head bangers or the strident zealots of the religious right.

All I ask is to leave me free to leave you alone and I will do the same.

Col:

All I ask is to leave me free to leave you alone and I will do the same.

See I don't think that an adult taking that rather large and personal choice for a child is leaving them alone.. it is taking to much, we chose 18 as an age of consent for a reason... this is more than just a skinny dipping at the beach type nakedness.... How may this girl feel at 25, 35?
Also that it is an artists' right is a joke, Is it my fathers right to start photographing me naked when i am a mere child or the bloke nxt door etc? no

Thanks everybody for the all the interesting responses.

It's apparent that Christianity doesn't play much of a role in in most people's attitudes (at OLO anyway) to Henson's artworks. Perhaps, as Graham suggests, it's fundamentally a free speech issue, and in that sense is neither intrinsically religious nor incongruent with mainstream Christian thought.

I'm particularly grateful to GrahamY, R0bert, Steel Mann, chainsmoker, Foxy, Col Rouge and pelican for their perspectives in this thread. I think R0bert's point about the association, by critics of Henson, of his images with child abuse is insightful - I can imagine that the association in itself would be inhibiting for a Christian who wished to openly defend Henson, given the fraught experiences of Christian churches with child abuse in recent years.

Chainsmoker also makes the salient point that much of the identifiably Christian comment at OLO is rather more extreme than most of us would encounter in daily discourse. The contributions of runner, Gibo and Boazy in this discussion are good examples. However, thanks to the comments of others I think I can safely retain the null hypothesis that Christian sentiments aren't particularly explanatory in whether or not someone approves of Henson's images of nude adolescents.

Cheers :)

CJMorgan, I think this thread is a really poor sample. The history of censorship in Australia is filled with the religious pressing Australian politicians to implement ever more censorship http://libertus.net/censor/odocs/pj-rrrlobby.html and it works in a similar manner to the usa as explained here: http://www.alternet.org/sex/87015/?page=entire

I'm not sure why you made such a comment, but that kind of wilful blindness and gullibility is why they wield so much power...because everyone makes excuses for them and points to the moderates of no consequence. I've said this in a post before, but the religious moderates in the case of religion are the ones who wield the least power, politically and in their own religion. They end up following along in practice anyway. Just take a look at Rudd.

:) No matter what is written by 10,000 X 10,000 authors, anywhere, on any subject, the truth in the Book of Revelation, is that the Christians win.
No man or woman, with any thought they might have, can change this fact.
The worldlies...the humanists... the seculars...those deceived by the eastern religions... loose, unless they come to the Lord Jesus Christ.
You chaps need to read the last Book of the Holy Bible and get ready. Its all beginning to happen.
Gods finishing earth off.
Mankind is not going outwards to conquer outer space.
You need to go to The Lord in prayer for help even in these early days before the big troubles begin.

steel

question for you

the topic states christianity and henson

bill hensons photo's do not express christianty

they exploit a child

answer this ( steel )

would you aloow your child or a young member of your faimly to be portrayed like this and would any others here do that as well

see you all want it to be art

and others like me call it porn

and if you don't like my opinion well unlucky

as far as im concerned this does leave a loop hole for the pedophiles out their ,

as they will use hensons art as an excuse for their sick perverted
ways

so as it is the law is saying it is art ,

well ithink they got it wrong ,,

we are all allowed our opinion and its sure fact that you can not handle some one's opinion like mine (steel )

are you speaking for bill henson or for your self just would like to know

as im speaking for my self about this issue of which i have a right as all other members on the web site

your low cristiciam of me i can handle as you are lowering your self by attacking me

i thought grame young would of barred you for a few weeks guess not

rip into as much as you want the better for me just shows how immature you really are ,,

also i noticed that their was only one person who said they would let their child do a photo shoot , so it shows their is not really much suport henson has , because if you were all true suporters of his you all would of answered yes to my question,

( would you allow your child to be potrayed like this ,)

so i give it back to you all here in the forum , i have said my bit for now

the forgotten australians will not be forgotten no longer

regards huffnpuff

This could be a modern parable about two men going to pray:

First man's (Gibo's)prayer to God "Oh god in Heaven, I'm so glad that I'm so good. I write lots of religious things on the internet all the time. I quote lots of Bible verses and be really good. Of God, I'm so good aren't I God, not like Steel Mann - look how sinful he is.

My prayer: "Thank you Jesus for having mercy on a sinner such as me, and dying in my place."

Gibo, you need to discover the real Jesus, and not the delusion you have. I think you would find that even people in your own church would be embarressed at what you say. Jesus died to give us freedom, not to bind us to religious slavery.

huffnpuff,

I don't know if you are referring to me or the other poster just known as steel (I was just going to call myself steel, but he had taken that name.)

The debate about whether this is pornography or not lies as to the legal decision made by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. This is a board of well balanced people from the community to make decisions as to what classification should be given to films and printed material. The decision that was made on this occasion was that Bill Henson's work was not offensive, and was rated PG. The fact that you and Gibo and others find it offensive is purely your opinion. In my opinion it is not offensive. It the eyes of the law it is not offensive and that is what matters most of all.

Fundamentalist Christians such as Fred Nile should not be allowed on the board of the OFLC as they will not make balanced decisions. Likewise, you wouldn't allow a convicted paedophile a position on the board of the OFLC.

hi to all the forgotten australians

( steel man ) , i was not commenting on you it was for (STEEL)

hope this eases your mind , steel man ,, i replyed to his comment steel made so take it easy ,

if i have to make a point to anyone i will and always refer to that persons user name ,

why im here my opinion is still the same and won't change

regards huffnpuff

Hi CJ... I note your comment:

<much of the identifiably Christian comment at OLO is rather more extreme than most of us would encounter in daily discourse.>

This is quite true.. the reason is the format/context. We have not knocked on anyone's door.. grabbed them by the lapels in the street... cornered them at some function... blasted them with a loud PA system...

When we comment here, people can 'change the chanel' :) or just choose to ignore. The best response for me though, is interaction, even when it involves disagreement.

I guess the thing which draws various enthusiastic members of the anti GB brigade into the fray is the worrisome thought that what we say is going out to a lot of people.

You might have noticed that some who disagree with me (and Gibo,Philo or Runner) are able to do so without colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack.. Oliver springs to mind there, it's always a pleasure to debate him. Some of his questions though would require a library of response..and that usually results in him wondering why some questions are not addressed.

The problem with 'Christianity' and Henson is that we really only have a mandate to 'legislate' so to speak within our own fellowships, not the wider community. So, no matter what we feel about such works as Hensons.. (certain works only mind you) it's a bit of a moot issue because we simply would never have such works on the walls of our Churches and hopefully our homes.

For us, the real way of addressing all such things, is more to 'be' rather than to fight with all the lovers of erotic art around the place.
The more people we can draw to Gods love in Christ, then, the less who will find such nude portrayals of people interesting or beneficial.

Boazy: << So, no matter what we feel about such works as Hensons.. (certain works only mind you) it's a bit of a moot issue because we simply would never have such works on the walls of our Churches and hopefully our homes. >>

Boazy's sidestepping the issue. Presumably the "we" he uses refers to Christians, but as this thread shows, there are Christians out there who don't have any problem with Henson's artworks - refer in particular to the comments from GrahamY and Steel Mann. Also, prominent conservative MP Malcolm Turnbull, who is a practising Christian, not only has some of Henson's works in his collection, but also defended the artist publicly. No doubt there are many others.

So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al? Since there's apparently no theological or biblical reason to decry Henson's images, on what basis do the frootloop fundies join in the moral panic surrounding Henson's art?

Boaz stated above: ” You might have noticed that some who disagree with me (and Gibo,Philo or Runner) are able to do so without colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack..”

Boaz, you reap what you sow. Your very first response to an opinion I had expressed to Philo, started as follows:

“FRACTELLE... are you fractured ? I'm beginning to think so……”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1514&page=0#28326
The remainder of Boaz’s post is above. It was in response to my post below. Although it did not engage with any of the points I raised. Boaz was responding to me simply because he could not respond without resorting to “colorful negative adjectives or demeaning personal attack..”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1514&page=0#28317

Once again Boaz is caught out behaving with the hypocrisy of which he accuses others.

Boaz’ contribution to the topic is only to be found in his final paragraph. I can only conclude that he is saying if we believe in god, we will lose all interest in nudity.

ROFL

Hi Fractelle.. well I have to concede that 'fractured' remark looks bad :)

Was mean't to be a play on words re your nick.. ie... a fractured argument.

Fortunately your readers can look up the links and find this:

"The ONLY people thus far who are saying anything about 'all Muslims' is Foxy... when claiming that others are condemning them all.. and YOU who is for some strange reason claiming in the complete absense of actual evidnce the same thing."

So, my point was that you were asseting something that was not true, and 'fractured' seems like a reasonable description of that.
i.e.. what you said was 'separated' from reality.. fractured.

It was an attack on your argument, so perhaps I should have said "Your argument is fractured"..hmm would you have considered that a personal attack and demeaning?

CJ.. you asked:

<So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al?>

This the wrong question. I don't think any of us have condemned 'Hensons art' completely. We raise questions about his motives for the images using young children naked... but the rest must stand on their artistic merits.

In general, art should contribute to beneficial values in the community in my view. Sometimes being confronted with the dark side of humanity can achieve this also. But it's a very subjective area.

If we try to define and legislate for every human situation we will end up with laws bigger than the Tax act or become like the Pharisees who would not eat an egg laid on the Sabbath.
Perish the thought.

Unfortunately, we have secular Pharisees and Scribes hard at work to try to codify all human behavior into neat legislative parcels.
"No innappropriate touching".. so a teacher cannot give emotional encouragement to a student from a broken and loveless home by giving him/her a hug.

Boazy:

<< CJ.. you asked:

<So what is about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by Boazy, Gibo, runner, Philo et al?>

This the wrong question. >>

No, it is obviously a question you're either unwilling or unable to address, but it's the question I posed and which remains unanswered.

<< I don't think any of us have condemned 'Hensons art' completely. >>

Now that's just bulldust. While Boazy has tended to sit on the fence in the Henson debate, his fundy cohorts have posted some of the most inane and/or offensive comments in the discussion at OLO on this topic.

So, I repeat - what is it about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by the fundamentalists at OLO?

CJ I think you may well have to go to the Old Testament and Jewish understandings of art, along with their link to some of the puritanical movements in Christianity to get to the root of it. So you have a conflation of concern about making images at all with a view of human sexuality that is very prudish. I don't think it is logical, or authentically Christian, but it is deeply-rooted in a number of Christian traditions. If some of our posters have difficulty intellectually defending it, it is probably because it is as much part of the aesthetic of their religion as anything else.

While I grew up Methodist I now worship in an Anglican (moderately high) Church. Art is part of the whole deal, and theology tends to be a bit more liberal, and a lot more based on the New, rather than the Old, Testament. So the aesthetic of my practice favours ornamentation and art, and draws more strongly on the ambiguities in the New Testament about sexual matters, rather than the certainties of the Old.

To get some idea of how some creeds have discriminated against art, Calivinists would not have stain glass windows in churches, nor organs (and as an organist I've got to be against the last).

CJ asks

'So, I repeat - what is it about Henson's art that is incongruent with the Christianity practised by the fundamentalists at OLO?

It is obvious to even many heathen that taking nude shots of children in or entering puberty is of no benefit to anyone in our society except deviants. It is straight out child exploitation and abuse. It is obvious that you CJ have no answer to this except to change the topic and somehow make this a freedom of speech/expression issue and redefine this exploitation as art. It is true that probably the majority in our community either support or are indifferent about adult porn but few (only deviants) agree with child porn.

Runner, if it's porn it must be designed to be sexually stimulating, and nothing else. How are these photos sexually stimulating? I don't find them that in the least, and if I did, perhaps I'd find any photos of young girls, clother or otherwise, sexually stimulating. So is your position that we should ban all photos of anyone under the age of 16 which might show, or hint at, their sexuality?

Boaz

I gave the above example of your disrespect for other's opinion because it was the very first time you had responded to me since I registered on OLO.

And now you say 'I wasn't attacking you; I was attacking your argument' well really? So from this I can infer that EVERY SINGLE TIME you have used personal insults to me (and there have been plenty since that first time), that you were in fact attacking my argument.

How stupid do you think people are?

Boaz, can you see why people on this forum see you as nothing more than a hypocrite? Even other christians criticise you.

See Graham's straight forward response to CJ's straight forward question, as you need help on constructing a civil reply.

GrahamY,

What artistic value is there in displaying a nude 12 year old girl? Share with us the ignorant blinded ones the benefits of displaying the breasts and vagina of young girls? The fact that you and many others(including myself) don't and would not find these photos sexually stimulating means nothing. There are plenty who do. Personally along with many others I find the sexualisation of all children 'revolting' whether clothed or not.

You know as well as I do that having some 'artist' have a 12 year old to strip off so he can take photos of her is child abuse at best. You call it artistic expression , I call it sick. Would you along with CJ allow your 12 year old to pose nude for 'art'. Would you be happy for her photo to be hung in bedrooms throughout our nation? If not why are you trying to defend the indefensible. It seems to me that you along with many others are more concerned about the freedom of speech than you are about the blatant exploitation of children. By blurring the line you will no doubt be able to justify any repulsive behaviour

Yes, many thanks to Graham for a lucid and well-reasoned response, which is very useful in trying to understand what's at the bottom of the moral panic. In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to untangle some of the ideological bases for a social hysteria that apparently cuts across political and religious orientations - but perhaps less so if, for example, class or education are considered (not to mention other factors). With respect to Christianity, it's a sort of process of elimination - it appears so far that Christian faith per se isn't a particularly good predictor, but fundamentalist forms of it might be.

runner's latest offering is a good example that illustrates Graham's point perfectly - like Boazy, he can't or won't answer the question, and instead tries to deflect it into his usual prudish rant, labelling those who don't share his views as "deviants". Of course, one irony is that in sociological terms, frootloop fundies like runner are the statistical and manifest deviants, rather than the very large proportion of the population who are not opposed to Henson's art.

What I'm interested in with respect to Henson, is that the "fundamentalist" belief - that his images are perverse, pornographic and intrinsically abusive - extends beyond the predictable objections of the religious fundies and into mainstream sentiment.

Dear_Fractelle..

you_said:

"I gave the above example of your disrespect for other's opinion because it was the very first time you had responded to me since I registered on OLO."

YET....the first_thing you ever said 'to me' is this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7005&page=0#106303

"You consistently post some of the most divisive and vilifying comments on OLO, I had a christian upbringing and you are an embarrassment to all that is good about christianity - although you are an exemplary model of all that is bad.

I apologise to all other OLO readers and posters for succumbing to commenting on this deviant christian."

-You are an embarrasment.
-You vilify.
-You divide
-You model ALL that is 'bad'....
-Deviant Christian

Fractelle.. It takes a while to notice people.. that was just your EIGHTH post.. you were hardly on my radar until you started ripping me to shreds out of the blue.

I've posted something like 3500 posts before you came onto the scene..and the things I write are often continuations of things which have considerable history. Next time you could try "Can you explain why you feel that way" before tearing me to bits:)

So..when you attack me.. with no less than 5 'names' and you say that I epitomize ALL THAT IS BAD....

I would think that a 'r u fractured' (referring to your argument) is pretty mild by comparison.

CJ... don't pidgeon hole us together. We each have our own tradition and understanding. We don't represent 'Christianity' in any generic sense.

Runner made a good point I feel in his last post.
Graham also has worthy points.
There is no RULE to which we can look other than doing for others as we would have them do for us.

The only RULES applicable to Gentile Christians can be found in Acts 15.
They do include 'don't practice immorality' and we have to define what that is. Art?

Pictures of nude females are not 'sex b4 marriage' nor 'adultery' but perhaps contributing to 'lust?'.
Sanctified common sense and Democracy:)

runner claims "Share with us the ignorant blinded ones the benefits of displaying the breasts and vagina of young girls?"

I've not looked at much of Hensons work but I have seen an electronic copy of the image of the 13 year old girl which has been at the center of this debate along with some of Henson's other work. The pubic region in the perticular image was in deep shadow, runner much be using some pretty advanced image processing software if he can see a vagina.

"Would you be happy for her photo to be hung in bedrooms throughout our nation?" As far as I'm aware the image was hung in an art gallery. Were large sized framed prints for sale? Is runner aware of a single person who has a print of Hensons photo of the girl hanging in their bedrooom?

In that particular post runner has not stated that he was refering to Hanson's photo of the girl so he may have some wiggle room but what I think he is trying to do is attempting to link a much stronger case to one where what he desribes does not apply.

I'd be very concerned if Henson was displaying images of teenage girls vagina's in his photo's and then selling prints suitable for for hanging in the bedroom.

The work I've seen is much more respectful of the subjects than that.

R0bert

CJ

Your question regarding "the "fundamentalist" belief - that his (Henson's) images are perverse, pornographic and intrinsically abusive" extending into the mainstream is pertinent. People like Ginx and Paul L have demonstrated shocked reactions to Henson's work, whether they are at the same degree as religious extremists, I am not sure. But their reactions to nude art, specifically that of children, must have at its basis a type of orthodoxy. So there are non-religious who hold values that are puritan in nature. Have they been influenced at an unconscious level by religious dogma? Or were they born prudish?

Boaz

I stand by everything I wrote in that post. I have not claimed that you are intellectually incompetent as you have me.

I still find your interpretation at the extreme and fundamentalist end of the christian religion. That is what I was attacking - the manner in which you present your religious beliefs as being the only correct ones.

That you take my comments as personal speaks volumes about you. I do not know you, I can only form an opinion on what you say on these forums. And what you say about your version of christianity is nothing like the religion as I was taught at school and on Sundays. I attended an Anglican church, not the evangelistic variety with which you are affiliated.

I guess without your religion to support you - you have nothing else. A form of addiction I guess. As Vanilla and others have noted many times - you do your religion a disservice.

Fractelle: << Your question regarding "the "fundamentalist" belief - that his (Henson's) images are perverse, pornographic and intrinsically abusive" extending into the mainstream is pertinent. People like Ginx and Paul L have demonstrated shocked reactions to Henson's work, whether they are at the same degree as religious extremists, I am not sure. But their reactions to nude art, specifically that of children, must have at its basis a type of orthodoxy. So there are non-religious who hold values that are puritan in nature. Have they been influenced at an unconscious level by religious dogma? Or were they born prudish? >>

Quite so. While the prudish rants from e.g. runner and Gibo were perhaps predictable, I'm surprised that they haven't made some attempt to justify them by reference to Christian teachings. Perhaps Boazy's relative equivocation with respect to Henson reflects, if not greater "intellectual competence", then at least some acknowledgement that it's not an issue that has a specifically Christian dimension.

As you suggest, the sheer vehemence of secular decriers of Henson like Paul.L, Ginx et al did come as a bit of a surprise. Both Paul and Ginx made violent allusions in their comments about the topic - which of course did nothing to advance their arguments (if anything, such references only serve to discredit those who make them).

Of course, most people managed to present their ideas - whether pro or con - in more reasonable ways. However, I am still trying to work out why it is that so many secular and otherwise intelligent people seem to have such an ingrained antipathy, indeed abhorrence, towards works of art that present no moral or ethical challenges to so many others. I don't think anybody's born prudish, but it seems pretty obvious that there's still an awful lot of puritan socialisation occurring in our society.

I know some people are offended or threatened by my line of enquiry, but I suspect we're far from hearing the last of this moral panic yet, and I'm genuinely interested in trying to understand it.

CJ

Could the 'climate of fear' be part of the equation? People believing there are paedophiles behind every shrub on the way to school, when, in fact, we are just more open and vociferous about the crime. The internet has provided a means for paedophiles to organise - which is scary.

However, the overreaction by some is perturbing. Clearly, as Graham pointed out it is not purely a Christian perspective.

So my vote is on fear - if you want people to behave very conservatively, give them something to be afraid of. We have a population that is so frightened that it can't distinguish between nudity and sexuality.

I don't think prudes are born either - just a throwaway remark. Prudes are made by fear and ignorance.

I believe that many people see the photographing of naked 12 year olds as not only perverse but also stealing a person's childhood. Many films and magazines portray to kids that their main value is as sex objects. Expressing ones gender (eg femininity) is different from expressing ones sexuality. Puberty is difficult enough for kids without having 'inquisitive' minds asking you to strip so you can be photographed nude. We have stupid and naive parents who encourage young girls to cover themselves in makeup at younger and younger ages in order to be popular and accepted. Allowing and encouraging your kids to pose nude is the next step in the depraved nature of man.

Fractelle: << So my vote is on fear - if you want people to behave very conservatively, give them something to be afraid of. We have a population that is so frightened that it can't distinguish between nudity and sexuality. >>

Indeed. And sexuality itself is suspect under this moral panic where there's a paedophile behind every shrub and under every kid's bed, and every toy doll grooms little girls to be "cute" and "cool" (yet somewhat paradoxically a current hit movie celebrates promiscuity among adults). That is not to say that paedophilia and "sexualisation" of kids aren't real phenomena, rather that societal fear of the former and acquiescence to the latter are both manipulated via mass media representations that sensationalise them.

Keep them scared and they'll respond to populist, philistine platitudes such as we heard from virtually every political leader (except, notably, Bob Brown and Malcolm Turnbull).

runner: << I believe that many people see the photographing of naked 12 year olds as not only perverse but also stealing a person's childhood... [bla bla bla] ...Allowing and encouraging your kids to pose nude is the next step in the depraved nature of man. >>

runner, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but you haven't ever said actually why it is that an artistic photograph of a 12-year old is "perverse", or how it "steals a person's childhood" etc. You present your personal belief as a self-evident fact, as if that's that - because runner's decided so.

I suspect that Graham is quite correct, in so much as runner's rants on this topic might well be "interpreted" as fundamentally constituting expressions of the Calvinist notion of "total depravity", of which he probably isn't even explicitly aware.

However, as I've said, all that's quite predictable - what interests me is if, and if so how pervasively, these ideas permeate secular thought in the context of the current moral panic.

And then of course there are the psychoanalytic aspects.... :)

Oh, I dunno CJ. I've heard that photographs steal a persons soul, so I guess it stands to reason that they can steal a persons childhood.

Steal a Soul Bugsy ? actually there is more to that than we might think.

Those who have no questions about erotic teenage nakedness may not see it, but really in all this we are also speaking for the offspring of the models, who as yet have no voice.

Some of would 'project' onto their offspring, our 'enlightened/tolerant/liberated' viewpoint and feel they would have no discomfort at images of their mother or father on public display for all and sundry to gawk at. But there is a distinct chance they they might also feel considerable discomfort and embarrasment.

Perhaps this is an angle which should be considered?

CJ the fact that the pro/con opinion is distributed among both we 'religious whackos' and 'atheists' should bring up the issue of values/socialization and enculturation.

Perhaps the Christian morality is deeper in our common pshyche than some would like to admit, even among those who do not specifically confess Christ as Lord.

Apart from some moral reference point, it does not really matter if teenagers, children or grandma are portrayed not just naked but in all manner of conceivable posture and in combination with other people or.. dare I say it..animals.

I mean..the only barrier to such a direction is our enculturated sensibilities which, having no anchor (for the atheist) can be shaped and moulded even by debates like this.

A casual glance at the images on the walls of pagan temples and a scrutiny of the horrific practices or cruelty, homosexual and heterosexual cult prostitution, and violence in the name of the various deities should remind us of one possible cultural destination if we get on the wrong train.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchanalia

Having said all this, by way of exhortation, it remains true that the only Biblical principles (there is no 'law') which seem to have bearing on this are:

-Be filled with the Spirit not with wine.
-Avoid things tending to lust.
-Responsible guiding of younger lives, treating young women as sisters in all purity.

How one applies these, if at all, depends on one's relationship or lack thereof with the Savior.

How does photographing a 12 year old girl regardless of what they are or are not wearing take away their childhood? I would think you are capturing a 100th of a second of their life and preserving it for eternity. This girl is probably from a nudist family and doesn't have the shame others have with the naked body. Many people who grow up as nudists enjoy looking back on photos of their childhood.

Boaz, nudity has nothing to do with lust. Most sexual lust occurs when the subject is fully clothed.

If prudes like Boaz and Gibo (Now known as Gibo2) are so anti nude, how do you shower?

Steel man.. who said we are anti nude? You are just blurting out the nearest "bash a Christian/conservative" myth you could lay your hands on mate.

Nudity between married people and in families is normal. Walking down the street bare_breasted at 15 is not.

It is a psychological fact that next to self preservation the strongest instinct is self propogation. That inevitably involves the physical union of male and female.

The 'trigger' for that union is multi faceted.

-Visual stimulation.
-Opportunity.
-Relative sexual readiness condition, including age, attire, beauty etc.

Good grief.. do you have to re-read every history book on sociology just to work out that bare skin is a bit of a turn on?

The issue is more about 'how much' is culturally appropriate and acceptable so as not to cross the boundary between finding people 'interesting' as a potential mate and as a sex object for short term gratification of lustful desires. (which of course you never have right? :)

As I've said.. this whole area is not possible to tie down to some LAW or rule.. the Bible gives guidance in principle only and relies on common sense.

The Jewish rabbi's tried to add and supplement and lay down a 'law' for everything in life and ended up declaring (in some cases) that betrothal is based on intercourse with a child of mimimum age of 3 yrs and 1 day. Believe it or not, orthodox Judaism still supports this view and if you did some digging in the USA among orhtodox communities you will find some 'unusual' ideas do in fact prevail. (no..this one is not 'anti semitic' stuff like the protocals of zion..its real)

Steal Soul... I offered an explanation for that in my last post.

Some bright spark at school finds out your mum was the model, when she was 13 and gives that models daughter or son hell.

"Oh look at ur trashy slut mummy" (and a host of other things your imagination can work out) kind of thing.

My common sense tells me it's better to avoid such things and possibilties.

Fractelle

"So there are non-religious who hold values that are puritan in nature. Have they been influenced at an unconscious level by religious dogma? Or were they born prudish?"

I've stayed out of this debate as I felt it was directed more at the Christians who denounced Henson's work.

As an atheist and someone also critical of Henson, I have been drawn in though by this particular comment!

The answer is an emphatic neither. As stated I'm not influenced by religious dogma. I am not a prude, nor do I hold puritan values. Though from an environmental viewpoint, I do see the frugality often associated with Puritanism as desirable if we are to save our planet from self-destructing. But that's another debate.

My motivation on this issue, and it was stated ad nauseam by myself and others, is purely as a response to the changing state of modern western society in regards to the exploitation and sexualization of children and the way in which I see Henson art feeding into that in an unhelpful way.

I have great respect for the arguments of those like yourself and CJ, but in this particular instance I do resent the way you have narrowed the opposition down to wowserism, prudishness, religious fundamentalism and now Puritanism! You can deal with this as you wish, but I want it on the record one last time that you are totally wrong when it comes to people like myself. And also people like Ginx who is away from OLO at the moment, but who otherwise would no doubt be flying into you here in no uncertain terms!

I don't wish to restate my position on Henson as I've repeated myself enough already, but I just had to object one last time to this narrow pigeonholing of his critics!

Bronwyn

i entirely take your point regarding that line - it is narrow minded and was deliberately so. I was exchanging posts with CJ and if you had read further you would see that I stated the following:

"I don't think prudes are born either - just a throwaway remark. Prudes are made by fear and ignorance."

Now I don't for a second think you are a prude, Bronwyn - while we disagree on Henson's work, I fully understand your position. The point I was trying to illustrate is that we, as a society, are motivated more by fear than anything else. Fear is utilised in religion, politics and business. There are many on OLO who do react from fear and ignorance eg, Runner, Gibo - Boaz is in a different league, being completely dishonest.

We are so disfunctional regarding our sexuality and most of it stems from ignorance and the fear factor of the 'bogeyman', in this case the paedophile.

I apologise for that remark, but wish you had read further before making your post.

I hadn't intended making a post today - going away for a few days due to family crisis, but felt before I left that I should let you know that I respect your contributions too much, to let you think I considered all people who object to Henson's work as the the same. I don't. It is this point that CJ and I were trying to address. If religion is not the reason, why do many atheists and agnostics find Henson vexing?

Cheers

*Boaz looks up at the exceeding high puplit where dear Fractelle..the high priestess of balance honesty and moderation is looking down at him saying*

"Boaz is in a different league, being completely dishonest."

Fractelle.. does that seem a nice thing to say about someone?

Note the word 'completely'.... that's rather final...

I'm going to recommend that defammatory post be deleted, because it is a definite disporportionate and blatant character assassination of a fellow participant here.

By all means SHOW me my error with fact and argument, but to write me off 100% as 'completely dishonest'.. boy oh boy I'll not let that kind of rubbish stand unchallenged.

It seems I've been censored, or am about to be.

Talk to you all in a week or so. Do be nice to each other and take care :)

BD,

For goodness sake, man. Calm down.

The comment you so object to was NOT that you were 100% dishonest - you are being somewhat hysterical. Go back and read it in context: you were not being accused of defrauding widows and orphans or holding up liquor stores. You were - and have been many times - cited as not being honest about your motivation for some of the appalling, hurtful and misinformed things you say.

The contention was that you were in a class of your own when it comes to denying that you are reacting in ignorance and fear. Time and time again people have called you on this and indeed provided instances, contradictions, and what they describe as "porkies". In my understanding a porky is a lie; which means that you are being accused of being dishonest each time that word is used - but about your motivations only.

When provided with cases to support these accusations your usual M.O. is to slide away and create another thread...repeating the same things and ignoring prior critics. Perhaps if you were to stand your ground and try to prove to your questioners that they were mistaken you would not leave yourself open to such charges.

To recommend that comment for deletion would mean you would have to go back over every comment in which you have been accused of "telling porkies" or lying to yourself or contradicting yourself and apply for deletion of those too.

It matters not that I and others tell you that our objections are not based so much in matters of theology as in your manner. Now do you see what we mean?

I'm sure that no-one doubts for a moment that you are an upright and law abiding citizen. Equally I'm sure that no-one for a moment interpreted the remark you took offense to as saying anything to the contrary.

An interesting tactic, Boaz.

>>I'm going to recommend that defammatory post be deleted, because it is a definite disporportionate and blatant character assassination of a fellow participant here.<<

With the greatest of respect, Boaz, you have been caught out in flagrant disregard of the truth so many times, it is positively disingenuous to complain when someone eventually comes up with the "L" word to describe you.

There are many here who are perpetually dismayed by the level of mischief you stir up in the name of Christianity. That you have now decided that the only way to silence them is to request that their input be deleted, is quite frankly an act of cowardice.

Your normal style, if you need to be reminded, is to cut and run whenever you run out of arguments to support a failed position. There are, even now, open threads from which you have simply walked away, not as a reaction to attacks on your person, but because your needling anti-Islam attacks become exposed for what they are: rabble-rousing, pure and simple.

This approach, however annoying it is to the rest of us, is vastly preferable to your whingeing that someone is being nasty to you.

The fascinating aspect of your contributions to this particular thread has been their total absence of substance. Given an open invitation to present the Christian perspective on what appears to be a moral and ethical issue, you backed off completely. Yet on many other occasions, you have chosen to introduce religion where no such invitstion has been forthcoming, or was appropriate.

Why such reticence?

Perhaps the fact that you are unable to turn the topic against Islam - since you clearly share its views on so many issues with sexual content - has caused the frustration, and the lashing out at your interlocutors.

Bronwyn, I am totally with you on this one.

CJ and Fractelle, with respect, labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a prude or only guided by fear and ignorance is insulting to people who might intelligently argue against the Henson photographs without any form of overt dogma - religious or otherwise.

CJ words like 'moral panic', 'prudishness', 'puritan' do you a disservice. "Puritan socialisation' is a put down tool; this issue has nothing to do with puritanism. How do I know this? Because I am far from puritan and yet found the Henson art inappropriate? How can this be? I am old enough to examine and reflect and I am not deluded. I have sketched nudes myself and admired other nude works.

Can you and other pro-Henson contributors not see that the sexualisation of children for some is unacceptable in any context? For some posters to argue that "I see nothing sexual in these photos" is a low form of attack in my view; as an implication that 'we' must be sick if we see these photos as sexual. For me that argument is 1)disingenuous 2)evasive of the issue and 3) an unfair depiction of anyone who disagrees with you. Someone who might argue that a pro-Henson poster is a paedophile is equally disengenuous and unacceptable.

Why do some of the pro-Henson posters' seem determed to undermine and ridicule in an effort to uphold their own moral stance on this issue. Is it because the issue is not as black and white as it would appear?

I thought PaulL posts on this topic were on the money. PaulL argued in a reasonable and intelligent manner and copped more abuse than he gave. And I don't agree with PaulL on all other issues but respect his skills at putting forward an opposing viewpoint.

I know this post won't make me popular but why this obsession with defending Henson. I just don't get it when there are many more important issues one could raise their ire at.

Pelican

I just read this belated Henson comment of Andrew Bartlett's tonight . It's not very long and well worth a read. It's a thoughtful and nuanced view and I think you'll appreciate it.

http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=2037

"Bronwyn, I am totally with you on this one..........I know this post won't make me popular.."

There's been a few times recently where, like you, I've found myself on the opposite side of the debate to those I'm usually in agreement with. It got me thinking and as far as I could recall I felt I'd disagreed with all the regular posters on OLO on at least one issue. The only person I couldn't ever recall opposing at any time was yourself!

I referred to this on Ginx's Hanson/Henson thread and was hoping you'd pick up on it, but you didn't. Or maybe you did, but didn't want to put your hand up!

Hi Bronwyn
Thanks for that link - it is one of the best articles I've read on this issue and pretty much covers a lot of the aspects debated on OLO. I like the way Bartlett looks past all the distractions and gets to the heart of the debate.

I particularly liked this from Andrew Bartlett:

"This issue involves competing principles. Principles rarely apply absolutely without eventually coming into conflict with other principles. In such circumstances, we often have to decide how to adequately accommodate both. Sometimes one principle or the other has to take priority.

In this case, the principle of freedom of expression (artistic or otherwise) is coming into conflict with the principle of the protection of children. I believe freedom of expression is enormously important, but if there is a clear risk of harming children as a consequence, then the protection of children should take priority.”

And this:

“The issue of child pornography, while related, is not at the heart of this, in part because no one in the community supports child pornography. An obsession with issues like nudity or over-idealising the innocence of youth leads to distorted attitudes. Young teenagers do explore their developing sexuality and we do not serve them or society well by trying to pretend otherwise. But they should be able to do so privately and ideally alongside family or friends, not have distorted versions of it force fed to them through mass media or left exposed in situations where they are vulnerable to adult exploitation.”

I was thinking much the same Bronwyn regarding your comments on the Hanson/Henson thread. I wonder if this is a record on OLO. Statistically there has to be at least a handful of people we are mirrored in opinion, but I imagine it would not happen often on a public forum. :)

I was tired when I went to bed last night and, CJ and Fractelle I hope you are not offended by what I wrote as I am usually in agreement with your thoughts on OLO and respect your egalitarian and compassionate views on most issues.

Pelican

Sorry I didn't reply sooner; I've been away from OLO all week.

Glad you enjoyed that link. I agree, Bartlett outlined the conflicting positions very succinctly. The Senate is certainly going to be the poorer without him.

Will watch with interest to see how long our positions continue to coincide!