Who's right and who's here folks?

Photographer should have asked permission to shoot on church grounds, but the (in my opinion, stuck up prude) minister has taken it a bit too far...
 
The church is wrong. It is simply Art, and it's just an other example of religious NUTJOBS causing grief.

Do we really think god is up their thinking "Tut, Tut, Tut - what a silly photographer"?

The church is old, outdated, and needs to get a grip on reality before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.

Gary.
 
I'm not a religous person, but lots of people are. Did this guy really think he was going to use a church as a location for soft porn shots without the **** hitting the fan? :shrug:
 
I know the church, having shot a wedding there, they wanted to charge the couple and extra £60 for having photographs inside, so its probably nothing to do with the religiousinsult, just that the vicar didnt make a quid out of it :dummy:
 
CT said:
I'm not a religous person, but lots of people are. Did this guy really think he was going to use a church as a location for soft porn shots without the **** hitting the fan? :shrug:
Click to expand...

We don't know if its soft porn though, it could be nude art. There is a very obvious difference I think.

G.
 
EdinburghGary said:
We don't know if its soft porn though, it could be nude art. There is a very obvious difference I think.

G.
Click to expand...

LOL. Well the main thing is Gary he should have had the wit to ask unless he already knew what the response was going to be. But would you reasonably expect to be allowed to shoot arty nude shots of some female draped across the alter in Westminster Abbey? I'm not seeing any difference.
 
EdinburghGary said:
We don't know if its soft porn though, it could be nude art. There is a very obvious difference I think.

G.
Click to expand...

check out his site http://www.neolestat.com/ and have a look a the "At church" gallery

IMHO having the bloke lying on the altar really was extracting the urine from the church, where as some of the shots just using the church as a prop are fine.
 
Tbabe said:
check out his site http://www.neolestat.com/ and have a look a the "At church" gallery

IMHO having the bloke lying on the altar really was extracting the urine from the church, where as some of the shots just using the church as a prop are fine.
Click to expand...

It looks like it was created to invoke (or provoke) a reaction. It *is* art though, and I feel it's not as distasteful as the article hinted at. I think the point of the photos is partly, how risque it is, based on the setting.

Gary.
 
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
 
Badger UK said:
The title should read Who's right and who's wrong her folks?
Click to expand...

You can fix that by clicking on the "Go Advanced" in the bottom right of your Edit pane Badger... ;) ... you can then edit the title as you wish... :D






:p
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

My thoughts and beliefs exactly Colin.
 
Should he have asked permission? Without a doubt.

Should the Church be persuing legal action for 'Blasphemy'? Absolutely not.

Should the Church be allowed to waste the court's time trying? No.

Religion has no place in the courtroom, and the fact that a court would even entertain this is ridiculous.
 
I think he has been silly from a business perspective *possibly*. He does weddings, and I can see a lot of churches banning him.

However, as a marketing stunt, it could prove to be extremely clever (Ignoring the effect on his wedding clients).

Gary.
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

+1

Summed up perfectly
 
Another one for the Hacker approach and yes, although I am an atheist, we are by law a Christian society, which is why we have a blasphemy law and I believe the church is in the right here.

Showing two women posed to look as if they are "making out" on the alter with the words "Behold in His Glory Full of Grace and Truth" is blatently disregarding people's feelings and those of the landowner.

Its another case of a photographer thinking he can do anything on private land and that the landowner is in the wrong for having a problem.

Also, if he thinks these are fine art then I'm on a different planet. Are they fun pictures? Yes. But they are posed to be sexual and not artistic!
 
Very nicely put Hacker...

Anybody know what the maximum sentence is for this crime
 
oldboy2000 said:
Very nicely put Hacker...

Anybody know what the maximum sentence is for this crime
Click to expand...

Not sure there is... :shrug:

BHA said:
Blasphemy

The outdated and discriminatory blasphemy laws were abolished in May 2008. The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were common law offences which were contrary to the principle of free speech and probably contrary to human rights laws adopted by the UK, which protect freedom of expression. The law fundamentally protected certain, Christian, beliefs and makes it illegal to question them or deny them.

There were a number of recent attempts to prosecute using the blasphemy law, all of which have been rejected by the courts. Most recently the High Court rejected the case against BBC Director-General Mark Thompson over the screening of Jerry Springer – The Opera (penned by Stewart Lee, who subsequently became a Distinguished Supporter of the BHA).

We campaigned for an end to the blasphemy laws in the UK for over century and warmly welcomed their abolition. Most recently, we published a briefing on the compelling reasons to abolish the blasphemy laws and we supported amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to abolish the laws, in both the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The Government wrote to us to say they were grateful for our support and Evan Harris MP, who spearheaded the initiative to abolish the laws thanked the BHA and especially the 1000+ people who emailed their MP through the BHA on the two days running up to the Commons vote on the subject.

What are we doing now?

Although the blasphemy laws have gone, many religious groups are stepping up their campaigns to have books or artworks they disagree with banned or censored - the BHA will be working to oppose such attempts whenever we hear of them, and to uphold freedom of speech.
Click to expand...




:p
 
Whether there is a blasphemy angle or not, the fact he disregarded the landowners feelings (as it is obvious that they would have refused if asked) gives photographers a bad name. Crawling round his site, it looks like more than a one off too...
 
grumpybadger said:
Whether there is a blasphemy angle or not, the fact he disregarded the landowners feelings (as it is obvious that they would have refused if asked) gives photographers a bad name. Crawling round his site, it looks like more than a one off too...
Click to expand...

Absobloodylutely GB... :thumbs: ... Don't get me wrong as I couldn't agree more... :suspect: ... he really should pay the full consequence of this total disregard for what is, basically, a quesiton of right and wrong... :shrug:


I am with Colin on this totally and he has put it far more eloquently than I could... :D






:p
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't object to the content of the pics, but to take them in a church is just beyond.
 
I'm sure there is still an offence of sacrilege. Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 18 summat or other IIRC.

I think it's more do with vandalising places of worship - graveyards etc, and interfering with reigious ceremonies.
 
Is there no law encompassing being an utter tool?............:D
 
LOL. Unenforceable... given the volume of work it would generate. :D
 
CT said:
I'm sure there is still an offence of sacrilege. Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act of 18 summat or other IIRC.

I think it's more do with vandalising places of worship - graveyards etc, and interfering with reigious ceremonies.
Click to expand...

Looking at this guy's website, he has some (ahem) niche interests.
In regard to sacrilege, I'd think lying on a grave with your mammaries out qualifies :gag:
 
don't see any difference to somsone using a disused warehouse for shots.

Church is just being its usual out of touch self in this matter. The only thing they are doing is making the photographer infamous.
 
A very clever way to get your name in the papers really, and I don't think it was anything but a publicity stunt.

After all, I wonder how many people have run of and googled his name name in order to see the images? :)
 
EdinburghGary said:
The church is wrong. It is simply Art, and it's just an other example of religious NUTJOBS causing grief.

Do we really think god is up their thinking "Tut, Tut, Tut - what a silly photographer"?

The church is old, outdated, and needs to get a grip on reality before it becomes an even bigger laughing stock.

Gary.
Click to expand...

At at the end of the day he went on private land without permission and took Erotic shots,what the hell does the ****** expect a b****y medal.
He would be prosecuted were he on any private land let alone church land
 
POAH said:
don't see any difference to somsone using a disused warehouse for shots.

Church is just being its usual out of touch self in this matter. The only thing they are doing is making the photographer infamous.
Click to expand...

Tis true and the owner of the warehouse would be entitled to be miffed too.
 
As Kurgan would say "Holly Grounds, Highlander".

Regardless of personal views on religion, being outdated or not, holly grounds needs to be respected for what they have represented over the centuries and for the billions who continue to believe in it.
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...

:agree: +2
 
I completey agree with Wail ...it is a church and should be treated with utmost respect.
I am not religious in any way but the older generation and younger generation that use the church should be exempt from any ruling saying their holy grounds can be used for any form of porn, its just not right
 
I think the church needs to chill out a bit...

It seems like its another way of getting money out of someone for the collection.
 
I do believe the church needs to chill a bit, but I think the photographer could have approach it in a different manner - and that he knew what the reaction would be - and will no doubt reap the benefits of more traffic to his website.

I have to admit that I like some of his work though.
 
I think to turn up and just start shooting this in church grounds is wrong. I suspect he did not ask permission because he knew it would never be given. I don't think this is anything to do with the church being "out of touch", just objecting to their property being used in this way.

Again, like so many others, I'm not religious - but I think it's just disrespectful to turn up and start shooting erotic pictures around a church.
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...


Amen to that :thumbs:

Chris :)
 
Hacker said:
It's all about respect and having thought for other peoples beliefs and sensibilities. I'm an athiest and quite anti-religion but I wouldn't dream of behaving like this as anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that taking glamour/art nude/erotic/soft porn shots inside a church is going to cause a furore and the photographer has no excuse for his inappropriate behaviour.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'm with the church on this one.
Click to expand...


:agree: :plusone:

Well said that man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top