ALT-2 Chocolate Jesus for Easter Blessing or Blasphemy
The word "blasphemy" means "speaking rudely about God or using God's name as a swear word." Therefore, the uproar over the Chocolate Jesus isn't an issue of blasphemy. I really hate it when people use words without even knowing what the words mean. Of course, Christians are always speaking about their faith without having any real idea of what it is they profess to believe in. Ask any Christian about details in the Bible, and they reveal themselves to be scripturally illiterate. But that really isn't the point here. The word Bible-thumpers want here is "sacrilege," which means "an act of treating a highly valued or sacred thing without respect."
But is that really the case here? Personally, I think the symbolism is perfect. Easter is supposed to be the day of celebrating the resurrection of Christ, and yet it has pretty much become an excuse for stores to push chocolate. And yes, Christians are as guilty as anyone of aiding and abetting this commercialism. Personally, given that the Christians pretty much co-opted a pagan holiday to use as the time to celebrate Christ's resurrection (even keeping the pagan Easter name as well), and that Christians also superseded the Saturnalia celebrations of the winter solstice for the Christmas holiday, I don't see where Christians have any right to complain about someone else co-opting the trappings of their faith and holy days to make a point.
Much has also been made of the fact that Chocolate Jesus is naked. Well? Doesn't that have biblical backing? Did it not say that the soldiers cast lots for Jesus's clothing? My copy of the Bible indicates that his garments were parted prior to the crucifixion, meaning he must have been naked. The Bible doesn't mention a loincloth, and it's likely that there wasn't one. I'd also add that Jesus wasn't likely snowy white like most of the paintings we've become accustomed to seeing of him. So if you feel that there's something obscene about the fact that someone could imply that Jesus was naked on the cross, or worse, that Jesus was anatomically correct, then the problem lies in your hang-ups, and not in the attempt by the artist to render a reasonably accurate (albeit chocolate-y) picture of the Savior on the cross.
