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.