I would have hoped that Christians might welcome any image of Jesus Christ being subjected to cruel indignities (albeit artistically), given that the real-life cruel indignities described in the crucifixion stories and ever-present in the iconography of the cross are central to Christian belief (Letters, 23 April). The original Roman nails were presumably real; the extra nails of Piss Christ merely metaphorical. Is there really that much to get upset about when images of Jesus being mistreated dangle from every cardinal's neck and appear on every cathedral and chapel altar, and in every stained-glass window around the world, and have done so for 2,000 years?
There is a bigger irony here: Piss Christ is a visually compelling piece which, without knowing the work's title and method of construction, many Christians would happily hang on their walls (though I wouldn't pay more than a tenner for it). Meanwhile, traditional crucifixion paintings (El Greco, say) portray a beautiful, bearded, western white guy, somehow radiant at his point of departure. In either case, you could say smoke and mirrors: both true or untrue, depending on what you care to believe.
As for the Danish cartoons: like all businesses, the Guardian has a duty of care to its own staff. Not subjecting employees to the unwanted attentions of Islamo-fascist terrorists does not equate to editorial oversensitivity to Muslim feelings at the expense of Christian ones. As an atheist, I don't care much either way about theological arguments, but do care when too easily offended religious believers of any stripe try to limit the Guardian's journalistic freedom of expression.
Nigel Longhurst
Liverpool