emmaekay wrote:I don't see anything offensive about this. Now, the zombie recreation of The Last Supper where they're eating the body of Christ? That's pretty offensive. This is an homage, an innocent parody that injures none and doesn't portray Christianity or Christ in a negative way. It's just some cats, ya'll.
For the record, I was raised Catholic, abstained from religion for several years and am now a practicing Buddhist. For those that asked "if this was Muhammad..." I have a question for you: if this t-shirt had a fat cat in a robe, sitting in the lotus pose, would you be so riled up about my religion being mocked? Buddhism is the 4th largest religion in the world, but our symbolism and imagery are used and parodied constantly. The difference is... most of us couldn't care less. I have never met a fellow Buddhist offended by the Hello Kitty Buddha, the thousands of nonpracticing people who have Ohm tattooed on their back or the dozens of other bastardizations of our religion.
This shirt design is a parody of one of the most famous paintings in the world. There are many parodies of this painting, along with the Cistine Chapel paintings and tons of other Christian relics. These images are part of our culture as a whole, not just your religion, and are thus subject to critique and parody - like any other widely referenced or recognized imagery in our culture.
TL;DR: get over it, your religion is not special and you need to take yourselves a little less seriously.
Every artistic representation of something considered to be sacred will never live up to the actual event being depicted. It will always fall short and some may find this offensive. Even God said to make no images of Him since no image could ever begin capture Him (and that was for the person who quoted Matthew). However, this doesn't mean that the representation was meant as an offense. DaVinci's painting pays homage and also tried to honor and respect a moment which is the best any artist can do regarding any moment. Walmazan is here poking fun (a form of paying homage) at DaVinci and thereby poking fun at what DaVinci was trying to honor whether that was Walmazan's intention or not. But Walmazan does it (from my perspective of his choice of symbols) without honor and respect to this moment(The Lord's Supper). Whether some/all images belong to popular culture or not is inconseqential. Whether buddhists laugh/not laugh at a cat buddha is also inconsequential. Of course my faith is special because it is special to me. It is special for everyone too but that is also my belief.
So now we're on to humor. A lot of humor is funny ... or offensive. It depends greatly on who you are and also on the moment. A satire of a funeral at a funeral might be appropriately funny or offensive depending on what type of funeral you go to even if you're a close relative of the deceased. So as humor is personal, you are free to find this funny as I am free to find this offensive. As for lightening up, that's a matter of our relationship in sharing this space. You're laughing in the same room as someone who is offended and this makes you at the very least uncomfortable and at most annoyed enough to ask "What's his problem?". So you get annoyed at the guy who won't laugh and tell him to, "lighten up, his religion is not special." In this space we share, we are also free. You are free to laugh away and enjoy and I am free to think that it is at least questionable and at most wrong to depict the Lord's Supper in this way.