Posing as Religious Symbols, Bad Taste?


Son of Liberty
Sometimes these celebrities just take it a step to far..... or do they? :eyebrow:

The picture depicts Lohan as a Christ-like figure, draped in a white robe, posing with her arms outstretched, Crucifixion-style. And just in case anyone misses the blatantly obvious, hit-you-over-the-head visual reference to Jesus on the cross, Lohan wears a crown of thorns atop her platinum-blond extensions.

As is often the case when religious figures are depicted in popular media, the French magazine cover is already drawing fire from Christian thought-leaders.

Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic League, told Politics Daily: "Not only is the pose inappropriate, the timing is offensive." (Catholicism's most sacred season begins next Wednesday -- Ash Wednesday -- with the start of Lent, the annual period of pentinence and abstinence that leads up to the Easter celebration.)

Lindsay Lohan's Controversial Cover Photo - A-Line: the celebrity style blog - omg! on Yahoo
But what is to far? At what point is every pose, style, and dress taboo? I realize this particular article is nothing more than Hollywood Gossip... but I think there is a decent debate that can be had about how much does it take for something like this to be in bad taste or the flip side of this coin; At what point are people just being too sensitive to things like this?

Is reaction mongering really worth pissing off whole religious sects? Should photographers or other crew members have opposed something like this? At what point has something like this photo shoot just gone to far?


/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
I do know that if the images look anything like Muhammed, then the actress and the magazine (or maybe even entire France although i haven't heard of this publication before) will be dealing with way more than angry talk from clergymen. Ok, so maybe that reaction is exaggerated. However, I think those who hold these images or anything related to their diety so sacredly, have reason to be offended when it's used like this elsewhere. However, it's nothing illegal and is not a reflection itself of the religion (not bashing it, etc.); It's just in poor taste and could be very controversial --- although I think it's what exactly they're looking for here. Provocation and controversy for publicity's sake. But they can hide under the reason: it's art.


Staff member
I don't think people's main concern should be if they are upsetting any particular group of people. Instead, their primary concern should be being 100% sure that the religious figure they are portraying not only isn't real, but doesn't have the ability to smite them. I think that should be the main concern here. ;)


A Darker Knight
They should be more offended because it's Lindsay Lohan more than anything.

I guess they could be angry. I could understand, but I wouldn't be sympathetic. Coming from a religion that loves to have its image everywhere (or at least it seems like it), stuff like this is bound to come up in media every so often.


Registered Member
Nothing Man-made is sacred. Important and special maybe, but never sacred.