The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Vicar of Piss Christ

OK, Spanky: You're the editor of a Danish newspaper. Do you run this cartoon, knowing that it will offend a great many people but steadfast in your convinction that you will not be intimidated? Or not?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, Spanky: You're the editor of a Danish newspaper. Do you run this cartoon, knowing that it will offend a great many people but steadfast in your convinction that you will not be intimidated? Or not?

Hindus eating cows in cartoons -- funny, or not so much? Open question. It just seems like something like that, or depicting Mohammed, or even piss christ or whatever that was, is way, way more intended to offend and inflame than anything else.

Which seems really stupid, in light of the US (and much of Western Europe) trying to get things stabilized in the ME.

But, whatever. Yeah, I guess they had the right to run the cartoon. No, I don't think it was a good idea, and I can't really support it.

The funding of the piss christ guy seems distinguishable because I highly doubt that his grant application said "I'm going to immerse a crucifix in urine" and I think it's fair not to give money to him after that.

My $0.02, for anyone not ignoring.

And, it seems like the whole mohammed thing is more like depicting Colin Powell and Michael Jordan and Jesse Jackson and Coretta King as Uncle (or Aunt) Tom(asina)s.

I mean, shit, it seems like the bomb in the headdress would be more like a statement about Islam self-destructing than anything else.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think you are trying very hard to understand what I am saying. Or, you are putting words into my mouth for fun.

I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?

I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that because portraying Mohammed is proscribed by the Koran, but portraying Christ on the Cross submerged in urine (or an image of Mary covered in feces) is not directly proscribed by the Bible (so not I can't cite you a verse) that the portrayal of Mohammed is somehow a higher level offense.

In other words for something to be blasphemous or offensive it has to be specified as such in a holy text. That is absurd. Does Christianity not have sacred ideas, relics or symbols? Isn't it obvious that disrespect of such ideas, relics or symbols will offend most Christians. Do you need a specific doctrine or passage in a religious text to identify an activity as truly disrepectful or blasphemous to a religion? Of course not.

Saying that Mary is not a Virgin is blasphemy to many Christians. I don't need a passage form the bible to know that. Here is one definition of blasphemy: "An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."

Any moron could tell you that submerging Christ in urine would be highly offensive to most Christians and would be considered blasphemous to most Christians. Five hundrede years ago such an act would probably gotten you executed in most Christian countrys.

Just because the Bible does not proscribe dipping Jesus in Urine does not mean that one should assume that such an act is somehow less provacative, or less of a stab in the eye, than the portrayal of Mohammed.

You are probably the first and the last person to make such a ridiculous argument.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



Apparently.

My guess is that you were the only person posting to this board that didn't know what he was saying.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall saying anything about Arkansans.

Whether you said anything about Arkansas in no way would hinder you in understanding what he was saying or hinder you from being able to answer his assertion.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, and no.

It is just Yes. I understood what he was saying and everyone else did. If people in Alabama had started rioting and burning everything in site because of the Christ in Urine dispaly you would be freaking out and saying that the media and free speech should not be cowed and intimidated by these thugs and that pictures of the "art" should continued to be displayed to show that these ruffians can't intimidate people from exercising their free speech in this country.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, Spanky: You're the editor of a Danish newspaper. Do you run this cartoon, knowing that it will offend a great many people but steadfast in your convinction that you will not be intimidated? Or not?

I wouldn't have printed it originally, but once people started trying to intimidate newspapers from printing such material I think it is important to print. Just like those other papers in Europe did. I think those other papers reprinting those cartoons was a brave act and I applaud them and I find it pathetic that so many people can't appreciate their principled stand.

I did not think the Christ in Urine or the Mary covered in Feces had any artistic value, but once people started protesting them I wanted every paper to print pictures of them.

I heard that the last Temptation of Christ was not a good movie, but once people started banning it and demonstrating outside the movie houses I made a point of going to see it in the theaters. I was told that I would not like the "Passion" but I went to see it once people started demonstrating against it.

[notcasesensitive]

The fact that there were violent protests to a cartoon that mocked the violent reputation of Muslims: Ironic or No?

TIA.

Ps. I have no interest in participating in (or reading, really, if you must know) the great cartoon debate going on here, but thanks for asking.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I wouldn't have printed it originally, but once people started trying to intimidate newspapers from printing such material I think it is important to print. Just like those other papers in Europe did. I think those other papers reprinting those cartoons was a brave act and I applaud them and I find it pathetic that so many people can't appreciate their principled stand.

I did not think the Christ in Urine or the Mary covered in Feces had any artistic value, but once people started protesting them I wanted every paper to print pictures of them.

I heard that the last Temptation of Christ was not a good movie, but once people started banning it and demonstrating outside the movie houses I made a point of going to see it in the theaters. I was told that I would not like the "Passion" but I went to see it once people started demonstrating against it.

This just makes you sound like a bit of a sucker. Did you know that the owner of the Utah Jazz has refused to allow Brokeback Mountain to play in his movie theaters? It threatens to turn all those virile Utah cowboys into pink triangle-toting queers, I hear.

Also Hollywood would like for you to know that Tom Cruise has a dangerous anti-antidepressent stance. There may be some sort of protest led by Brooke Shields on opening day of Mission Impossible III this summer (rumor has it he'll be pelted with little purple pills while standing on the red carpet). Go see it!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky

In other words for something to be blasphemous or offensive it has to be specified as such in a holy text.

Sllllooooowwww down Spank. Let's see if we can get Ty to commit to being a strict constructionist. That we can use later.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive

Ps. I have no interest in participating in (or reading, really, if you must know) the great cartoon debate going on here, but thanks for asking.

2. This has to be one of the least interesting political and moral issues to get this much play (on the news, not here) in some time. Some goofy cartoons provided the impetus for the release of pent-up anger in the muslim world for perceived western abuses against muslims. It could just as easily have been a muslim served fries dipped in pig tallow in East St. Louis.

while we're at it, caption this pic:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. This has to be one of the least interesting political and moral issues to get this much play (on the news, not here) in some time. Some goofy cartoons provided the impetus for the release of pent-up anger in the muslim world for perceived western abuses against muslims. It could just as easily have been a muslim served fries dipped in pig tallow in East St. Louis.

When I lived in DC there was an incident at an au bon Pain. a muslim woman ordered a Chef's salad- the menu didn't say it would include ham. when she got it she asked them to make her a new one w/o ham. the manager refused and told her to pick the ham off if she didn't want it. she had to pay for it. Small article in the WP about 1 pissed off woman- no burned buildings. Times change, and I don't think the manager would do the same today (hypo manager- the specific one might do the same thing).

mostly I agree with Fringey that the cartoons smack more of pickaninnie racist depictions than anything. the "Western" reaction to such racism is to boycott the publication and immediately think less of those who buy it (while secretely snickering at a funny one).

The riots aren't centered in the European countries, which is at least sort of positive as to european muslims being more integrated into those societies, but what I think it really shows is how far apart we are from the ME world. As to Ty's point that the Cartoons were meant only to enflame and that's what makes them bad, what is the readership of the Danish newspaper in Afghanistan?

I just see it all as a statement that we are heading into endless conflict. Before we could kid ourselves that if only Israel/Pali settled down we could all get on the same page and not have to worry about working in really tall buildings anymore. this is the first time i can remember where it's clear that leaving the ME alone isn't enough. The extremes want to control what we do here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

while we're at it, caption this pic:

Top-40 answer:

(i assume this is from the king funeral)
pssst.....hey, does Laura LET you go "to the back of the bus?" know what i mean?

more obscure answer:

pssst....Heard she suck a good dick, and can hook a steak up

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This just makes you sound like a bit of a sucker. Did you know that the owner of the Utah Jazz has refused to allow Brokeback Mountain to play in his movie theaters? It threatens to turn all those virile Utah cowboys into pink triangle-toting queers, I hear.

Also Hollywood would like for you to know that Tom Cruise has a dangerous anti-antidepressent stance. There may be some sort of protest led by Brooke Shields on opening day of Mission Impossible III this summer (rumor has it he'll be pelted with little purple pills while standing on the red carpet). Go see it!

oh N.C.S. Stop!
smarter men are talking here.
pond too deep to swim.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that because portraying Mohammed is proscribed by the Koran, but portraying Christ on the Cross submerged in urine (or an image of Mary covered in feces) is not directly proscribed by the Bible (so not I can't cite you a verse) that the portrayal of Mohammed is somehow a higher level offense.

In other words for something to be blasphemous or offensive it has to be specified as such in a holy text. That is absurd. Does Christianity not have sacred ideas, relics or symbols? Isn't it obvious that disrespect of such ideas, relics or symbols will offend most Christians. Do you need a specific doctrine or passage in a religious text to identify an activity as truly disrepectful or blasphemous to a religion? Of course not.

Saying that Mary is not a Virgin is blasphemy to many Christians. I don't need a passage form the bible to know that. Here is one definition of blasphemy: "An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct."

Any moron could tell you that submerging Christ in urine would be highly offensive to most Christians and would be considered blasphemous to most Christians. Five hundrede years ago such an act would probably gotten you executed in most Christian countrys.

Just because the Bible does not proscribe dipping Jesus in Urine does not mean that one should assume that such an act is somehow less provacative, or less of a stab in the eye, than the portrayal of Mohammed.

I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended.

I agree with your point about how people would have reacted 500 years ago. And yet that's not true today. That change, it seems to me, tells you something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It is just Yes. I understood what he was saying and everyone else did. If people in Alabama had started rioting and burning everything in site because of the Christ in Urine dispaly you would be freaking out and saying that the media and free speech should not be cowed and intimidated by these thugs and that pictures of the "art" should continued to be displayed to show that these ruffians can't intimidate people from exercising their free speech in this country.

Many people -- including you -- are just being dense when you keep throwing "free speech" in my face here. I am all for free speech. I do not think the Danish government should be able to prevent Danish newspapers from running offensive cartoons. And I would think that there is a problem in the Danish newspaper market if Danish Muslims had the economic clout to ensure that no Danish newspapers articulated certain ideas.

This tactic of hypothesizing some situation, telling me how I would respond, and then telling me why I would be wrong is just dumb and lazy. Stick to what I've actually said. You have a hard enough time with that.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Okoay, I know you are talking to Sebby here, but....let me just say that you are one of those posters with whom I agree with over 80% of the time. You seem flabbergasted that everyone thinks your arguments sucked. If you feel so strongly about this, you really should go back and re-read the original posts, and then your reactions to them. Maybe some of the things you meant to say didn't come out the way you intended.

Maybe so. Gotta say that I really don't feel like going back and reviewing it all, though.

I did change my argument & add new ones about halfway through the string. Maybe those didn't take.

S_A_M