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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
(four quotes of me)

Tell me you read those four quotes and couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

The point is, Christians may have been offended, but not because of some Christian doctrine.

If you take a representation of a religious figure and put it in urine or dung, chances are, I dunno, pretty good that you're going to offend some adherents of that religion. That's true whether you're talking about Christ, Mohammed, Zoroaster or Mithra. But Moslems have an additional, distinct reason to take offense -- namely, the prohibition on depicting Mohammed at all. The first sort of offense derives from the underlying message. As I understand it, the second sort of offense relates to the means.

eta: When people saw pictures of Serrano's "art," were they offended by:

- what Serrano had done,
- by the fact that he was getting funding from the NEA,
- by the newspaper's paying attention to it, or
- by the newspaper's decision to run a picture of it?

My recollection is that it was the first two. I don't recall anyone complaining about the last two.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What we keep saying again and again is when the media won't print something out of fear of "offending" someone the effect on free speech is substantially the same as passing a law banning it

So I take you think that the U.S. newspapers have an obligation to print all manner of racial and religious epithets (e.g.) to offend people, just to show we still have free speech in this country?

C'mon Spanky -- you don't believe what you're saying here. You already said that if you were the Danish editor, you wouldn't have run the cartoon the first time around.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For one, a lot of Muslims seem to attach some importance to the fact that it depicts Mohammed.

Well, they need to get over that. But if they must hold onto their parochial beliefs, they can behave like the "voodoo" worshippers we have in this country - they can hold boycotts and picket things they don't like. I have no problem with anyone making a foolish spectacle of himself, so long as he's not burning cars or inflicting violence on people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tell me you read those four quotes and couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

The point is, Christians may have been offended, but not because of some Christian doctrine.

If you take a representation of a religious figure and put it in urine or dung, chances are, I dunno, pretty good that you're going to offend some adherents of that religion. That's true whether you're talking about Christ, Mohammed, Zoroaster or Mithra. But Moslems have an additional, distinct reason to take offense -- namely, the prohibition on depicting Mohammed at all. The first sort of offense derives from the underlying message. As I understand it, the second sort of offense relates to the means.

David Brooks wrote an excellent piece a copule of days ago in the NYTimes Opeds in which he explained perfectly why these "people" taking such offense to this cartoon are absurd and opportunist and really working toward a much deeper agenda. You should read it. It's well reasoned and would probably require you at least an hour of mental gymnastics and creation of warped arguments to refute.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So I take you think that the U.S. newspapers have an obligation to print all manner of racial and religious epithets (e.g.) to offend people, just to show we still have free speech in this country?

Say a newspaper printed an article that in Eskimo communities woman are often mistreated. Say an Eskimo got really pissed off and then killed the author of the article. (captioned for Ty: this happened in Europe but turn Eskimo into Islam and newspaper into movie).

Say that a climate of fear of offending was taking over after this murder- does that perhaps make it a little more acceptable to publish something that is intended to offend Eskimos to show we won't be cowed?

Again, Mohammed with a head-bomb turning into guys bombing stuff shows that maybe the cartoons aren't that fair off.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
David Brooks wrote an excellent piece a copule of days ago in the NYTimes Opeds in which he explained perfectly why these "people" taking such offense to this cartoon are absurd and opportunist and really working toward a much deeper agenda. You should read it. It's well reasoned and would probably require you at least an hour of mental gymnastics and creation of warped arguments to refute.

You should read my blog, where I posted a link to something on this subject even before Brooks ran his column.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Say a newspaper printed an article that in Eskimo communities woman are often mistreated. Say an Eskimo got really pissed off and then killed the author of the article. (captioned for Ty: this happened in Europe but turn Eskimo into Islam and newspaper into movie).

Say that a climate of fear of offending was taking over after this murder- does that perhaps make it a little more acceptable to publish something that is intended to offend Eskimos to show we won't be cowed?

How come it's the guys who always act so tough who keep talking about how important it is to prove that they aren't afraid? Why not just not be afraid? If you let the terrorists into your head like that, they will have won. If you want to show you're winning, ignore them.

It's what I tell my five-year-old too.

Again, Mohammed with a head-bomb turning into guys bombing stuff shows that maybe the cartoons aren't that fair off.

Oh the irony!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Looks like that cartoon of Mohammed as a pedophile was a hoax. (Actually, until I saw this, I didn't realize anyone was taking it seriously.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's what I tell my five-year-old too.

this smacks of when Jimmy Carter mentioned how daughter Amy was really afraid of the bomb during a debate with reagan. It showed america the keys were in the wrong guy's hands. thank god.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this smacks of when Jimmy Carter mentioned how daughter Amy was really afraid of the bomb during a debate with reagan. It showed america the keys were in the wrong guy's hands. thank god.

You're old.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You should read my blog, where I posted a link to something on this subject even before Brooks ran his column.

You should read mine. Lots of sexy adventures.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You should read mine. Lots of sexy adventures.

It sounds ribald and witty. Sign me up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It sounds ribald and witty. Sign me up.

Send me your blog.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another threat to free speech in Europe! I assume all of you who went apeshit about the Danish cartoons will be buying flying to the World Cup to make like Basil Fawlty.



Someone's got to show Germany that we won't be intimidated, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Another threat to free speech in Europe! I assume all of you who went apeshit about the Danish cartoons will be buying flying to the World Cup to make like Basil Fawlty.



Someone's got to show Germany that we won't be intimidated, right?

You look at the Sun for the political articles? or is this just in case the wife finds the links in your history?