« $1.2 Million Spanking | Main | Climate Change: Heads They Win, Tails We Lose »

This Donohue guy is a jackhole. He doesn't have to like the cartoon, but taking his gripes to the state government level (which will get him nowhere) marks him as a whiner extraordinaire. Plenty of non-Christians are offended by the misanthropic aims of fundagelical Christians (anti-gay legislation, anti-biomedical research, anti-evolution), al of which are rooted in sheer superstition and ancient parables and faery tales. Yet few non-Christians make noise about these solecisms until they're forced to do so in order to preserve their basic civil liberties in the face of an implacable onslaught waged by millions of trout-eyed, brainwashed Godheads.

Any religious person who admits to being anoyed or outraged at the sight of a cartoon mocking their object of worship can best be described in one way: "easy mark." I hold a number of things dear, but if someone pokes fun of them I couldn't care less, because the opinions of others don't impact my relationship with these passions. But religious folks can't see it that way. I never knew all-powerful gods needed earthly lynch mobs to protect them, but I guess I'll keep it in mind now.

I`m not offended by the arab or jesus cartoon. How could I be,they`re cartoons.

Beaming Visionary :)

I`m not offended by the arab or jesus cartoon. How could I be,they`re cartoons.

Beaming Visionary :)

BV, you make the mistake of assuming we're getting enraged on behalf of our god, which is silly, God can protect himself. But can you imagine how you'd feel if someone started drawing cartoons of your father like that?

This is how a christian's relationship with god works. He is "father".

And, despite everything youv'e said, I've yet to see a christian blow anythng up or burn anything down because of cartoons like this. Frankly your argument is pathetic; calling as "whining" that people protesting this went through legal channels, and in the same breath equating that with the islamic assault on our liberties?

"BV, you make the mistake of assuming we're getting enraged on behalf of our god, which is silly, God can protect himself. But can you imagine how you'd feel if someone started drawing cartoons of your father like that?

This is how a christian's relationship with god works. He is 'father.'"

This makes no sense. You say that Christians aren't upset on behalf of God but on behalf of a (symbolic) father, but you go on to note that this father figure happens to be God. So what you're saying is that Donohue et al. are, in fact, enraged on behalf of God (or Jesus; I guess these are sometimes interchangeable terms, sometimes not, depending on what branch of Christianity we're talking about).

"And, despite everything youv'e said, I've yet to see a christian blow anythng up or burn anything down because of cartoons like this."

If Christians actually think they deserve credit for *not* blowing things up, that's pretty telling, and such a lowering of the bar only reinforces the generally bloodthirsty nature of Judeo-Christian religions (anyone who's read the Bible cannot disagree that a literal interpretation of its passages requires true followers to hold a murderous stance toward certain people).

"Frankly your argument is pathetic; calling as 'whining' that people protesting this went through legal channels, and in the same breath equating that with the islamic assault on our liberties?"

That legal channels were used isn't the point. The protesting of the cartoon itself -- trying to use to government to make something unpalatable but perfectly legal vanish -- is what's really pathetic. I thought conservatives were all in favor of small government, but it's funny how quickly they rush to the courts when their precious mythology is derided or when they aren't afforded special priviliges.

Where did I mention anything at all about Islam? You must have a magic browser that displays words and phrases that mine doesn't.

You know, the jackasses that printed these obscenities are going to have to answer for this. And it ain't gonna be here on earth, baby. Somehow, that comforts me.

"You know, the jackasses that printed these obscenities are going to have to answer for this. And it ain't gonna be here on earth, baby."

So the cartoonists are all planning to become astronauts?

"Somehow, that comforts me."

I don't doubt it. J.J., here's an example of your typical loving, forgiving Christian. The fact that there is no Hell is irrelevant -- this person thinks that someone will and should suffer for all eternity for committing the grave offense of penning a cartoon mocking Christianity. Now that's the kind of person America needs!

Ok, I admit I jumped the gun a teensy bit bringing up Islam - what can I say, I've been worried about it recently for various reasons I shan't go in to here though, to be fair to me, it is implied by the context of the parent posting - but I would like to re-iterate the general point I was trying to make with that statement. You claim that your freedoms are being threatened by christians; I would argue that your freedoms are unlikely to exist in any real form without christians. Christianity has been the single largest liberating force in the last millenium. It started out as a liberating force - women were treated in a radically different way in the early church. They were equal. Not the faux equality of "they had some more rights than in other cultures. They were definitely equal. Unfortunately this equality fadded as the church became influenced by its surrounding cultures, and there's that whole period from about 500AD to 1300 that's best left in the history books where it belongs, but since then? Well, you have to look at the actual christian theology to understand it. Time after time christian scriptures mention love, peace and the like, in very universla terms. This love and peace and the like isn't exclusive. It doesn't apply to one group or another; it's for all people, not just "the christians", not just "the jews". Not just "the white people". Everyone.

Granted, specific instances of violence are present in the bible, but contextually they are just that; specific instances. THere are no blanket commands to attack unbelievers, or subjgate people who aren't like "us". No, far from it in fact, we're required to bring them the message of salvation with our hands out and empty in love. Whether a person accepts that message is between him and god.

And the first point I made, well, it wouold appear you've managed to completely misundertstand it. We aren't becoming enraged on behalf of god. My comparison was meant to make you consider how you, personally, would feel insulted if your parents were mocked in such a cruel manner. You wouldn't become enranged on their behalf. You'd become angry on your own behalf, because an insult against them is essentially an insult against you.

An insult against Jesus is an insult to me, personally. He can take it; he's a tough guy by all accounts. I have trouble with it. I become angry when people insult him. However, I have a role-model to emulate in my response. I don't become insulting in return. I don't try and get petty revenge, much as I'm tempted to. I'm not perfect in this regard but at least I try. Others are less controlled than I am and will seek to protest, which is their right.

I would disagree that the judeo-christian ethic is violent by nature. It was revolutionary, but not violent, and no reading, literal or otherwise, of any christian texts could be taken as promoting violence. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". My point is, actions are what counts when you consider how dangerous a group is, and the actions of christians by and large are non-violent, entirely in accordance with scripture. Any violent acts are an abberation when you consider specific warnings against violence from Christ himself.

I do find it funny that you assume "christian" = "conservative". or vice-versa. It's like assuming that "jew" = "liberal" or "black" = "criminal". Sterotypes are never clever, and though I freely admit that I'm just as guilty of such bad comparisons ("islam" = "violent" - that's based on a study of islamic scruipture but it's unfair to assume that all muslims are violent just because their prophet happened to be so), I do try to avoid them.

And, for the record, the judiciary are meant to be independent of the government. They aren't meant to legislate, they arbitrate. Further, the civil courts are not "the government", but government -provided arbitrators in non-criminal cases. Their decisions have no binding effect on anyone but the people who attend that court. Besides, as far as I can see they aren't attempting to make anything dissappear; they're writing protest letters to people. I assume that similar letters were written to newspapers and rich people who might have an interest. Hardly an attempt at censorship...

O.K. How about we just say the cartoons are tasteless and stupid, and leave it at that.

There aren't too many good things I can say about Larry Flynt, but I will give him this: when Mr.Flynt started Hustler magazine, he didn't claim he was doing it to "provoke dialogue."

Amen.

Please tell me these idiots don't get funded by student activity fees . . .

Wow. Those sure are inflammatory. You know, as soon as word gets out, I bet we'll see Christians rioting in the street. The Southern Baptists will probably distribute signs with catchy slogans like "Death to those who insult Jesus!" or "Behead those who blaspheme our Saviour". The Pentacostals will begin strapping on their bombing vests and hurling themselves into crowded restaurants to kill as many innocent victims as possible. Billy Graham will call for a crusade to kill the blaasphemers . . .

Oh wait. Never mind. None of that will happen because Christians aren't a bunch of barbarians who are immature enough to assault or murder other people over a bunch of (poorly drawn) cartoons.

Sheesh.