Conspiracy of Coverup: Naked Statues

Someone, somewhere in these forums mentioned some idiot (I forgot who & where) who wanted to start putting pants on David statues & generally covering up any religious artwork that also contained any nudity. Even a keyword search of the forums couldn't get me to the actual source-post, but here goes another religious whacko...
---------------------------------
Stallion statue given metal pants
www.reuters.co.uk...;jsessionid=JN5DEIBPLWSUOCRBAEZSFFA?type=humannews&StoryID=1208816

CATANIA, Sicily (Reuters) - Civic worthies in Sicily have come under fire for bolting iron "underwear" onto a municipal statue of a stallion to spare blushes during a religious procession involving an effigy of the Virgin Mary.

"It is almost inconceivable that in the third millennium, someone should cover a horse's private parts for the Madonna," said local animal welfare campaigner Alfio Lisi.

"Didn't God create all living creatures, including man? So why the scandal?" he told Ansa newsagency.

A statue of the Madonna will pass by the offending bronze stallion in an annual religious procession in the eastern Sicilian city of Catania set for later on Tuesday night.

City council officials were not available for comment.
---------------------------
In another thread, someone wanted to find out the state of religion today...Well, here's another indicator.

What I'm most amused at is that they want to cover MALE parts. Unclothed females appear to be just dandy, however. One would tend to suspect that, since animals didn't wear pants back in 3 BC, that Mary would have been familiar with the external differences between male and female animals. That was important to their lifestyle back then (you don't want to be killing off all the ewes in your flocks if you intend to increase the size of your sheep herd.)

And yeah, it was one of our wonderful US politicos who wanted to drape statues. The political cartoonists had a real field day with that.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Excuse me, but what a riot!!!! Works of art, done in good taste, needn't be censored. Of course, there is the issue of what 'good taste' is... If memory serves correctly, awhile back I heard a report on a piece in New York (?) on display that caused outrage... This was a sculpture of Mary that the artist had covered in elephant dung. (Anyone who knows more on this feel free to correct me/share!) Now THAT is a piece which should be censored.

Good point Byrd, about concern being only for male statues. Do I smell a conspiracy????? Hmmmmmm....

Maybe we should go around the Cistene Chapel and paint little black "censored" bars on Michelangelo's work...

This has been going on ever scince Sean Conery began playing the role of 007. Perhaps because these statues do not live up to those expectations (OOOPS)

Ah yes. The statue.

That would be our beloved Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and the offending statue is the one of Justice with her single bared breast. Or perhaps Law, who has a modest drape around his manly loins (in the interests of equality, they should have bared part of the equipment, though.)


From :www.freep.com...

(cut and pasteage)
Cover up: Justice Department drapes semi-nude statues

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

BY CHRISTOPHER NEWTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues, said spokesman Shane Hix. For aesthetic reasons, he said, the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.

The drapes provide a nice background for television cameras, Hix said.

ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Ashcroft has been photographed several times in front of the female statue that represents the Spirit of Justice. The statue has its arms raised and a toga draped over its body, but a single breast is completely exposed.

The other statue, of a man with a cloth covering his midsection, is called the Majesty of Law.

Both statues were installed in the 1930s when the building was finished, according to the Justice Department.

Hix said the Justice Department bought the drapes to avoid having to rent them every time the agency had a formal event. The drapes cost about $2,000 to rent.

He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.

``The attorney general was not even aware of the situation,'' he said. ``Obviously, he has more important things to do.''

The Great Hall is an ornate, two-story room that the department uses for ceremonies and special speeches.

In the past, snagging a photo of the attorney general in front of the statues has been something of a sport for photographers.

When former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer joked about the controversy to reporters Tuesday. ``If anybody has any nude statues, bring them to my office; I'll review them,'' he said.

Originally posted by Byrd The drapes provide a nice background for television cameras, Hix said.

Or perhaps Ashcroft merely wants to get across his point that Law & Justice shouldn't have anything to do with his actual duty?

Originally posted by Byrd He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.

So they're also trying to say that Ashcroft has no input for such alterations? Perhaps they were hoping he wouldn't notice wht taxpayers' money is doing? Or the fact that Ashcroft didn't disagree once he *did* notice?

Originally posted by Byrd White House press secretary Ari Fleischer joked about the controversy to reporters Tuesday. ``If anybody has any nude statues, bring them to my office; I'll review them,'' he said.

This would've sounded more appropriate coming from Clinton...

Why are you all laughing ? What's wrong ? These sicilians didn't hurt anybody. They didn't kill or wound anybody.

Of course, this " covering story " is a little bit funny, but hey, they can do it.