logo Sign In

Jesus Cartoon controversy — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Maybe I'm the only one, but I immediately saw the "hidden truth", or at least what the the artisits were trying to suggest in the political cartoon aimed at Christ. The name of the character he's fellating is called "Capitalist Piglet", the character I assume represents the Capitalist "system" in America, corrupt corporate fat-cats, "the Bush Administration", etc...

To me, it seems to be a statement about mainstream Christianity's seemingly blind and unwavering endorsement (if not outright campaigning) of the Republican party over recent years and the current neo-conservative administration they helped to power.

Not saying I agree with it. That's just what I read into it, since it IS meant to be a political cartoon, and obviously, artwork of that type tends to have an underlying message, hence the point. Granted, it's put across in very crude and inflammatory terms, but I assume that's keeping in tone with the artist's style and with rest of the series. There is truth to the cartoon, depending on your point-of-view.

Do I understand why some people are offended? Yes. Am I offended? No. Because I was taught in middle school that characters in political cartoons should not be understood as they appear overtly, but rather, as what they represent.

And is it okay for radical Muslims to burn down cities, kill people, and disrupt the economy of all of Denmark over one cartoonist's political views? Absolutely not. Anymore than it's okay for radical Christians to get worked up over this. For one thing, both Christ and Mohammed taught tolerance. And for another, it's not socially acceptable.

Can't understand why people can't just see something they don't like, shut their eyes and walk away. But no, it's gotta be "I'm right, you're wrong, let's have a culture war and set everything ablaze!"

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: InfoDroid
Maybe I'm the only one, but I immediately saw the "hidden truth", or at least what the the artisits were trying to suggest in the political cartoon aimed at Christ. The name of the character he's fellating is called "Capitalist Piglet", the character I assume represents the Capitalist "system" in America, corrupt corporate fat-cats, "the Bush Administration", etc...

To me, it seems to be a statement about mainstream Christianity's seemingly blind and unwavering endorsement (if not outright campaigning) of the Republican party over recent years and the current neo-conservative administration they helped to power.

Not saying I agree with it. That's just what I read into it, since it IS meant to be a political cartoon, and obviously, artwork of that type tends to have an underlying message, hence the point. Granted, it's put across in very crude and inflammatory terms, but I assume that's keeping in tone with the artist's style and with rest of the series. There is truth to the cartoon, depending on your point-of-view.

Do I understand why some people are offended? Yes. Am I offended? No. Because I was taught in middle school that characters in political cartoons should not be understood as they appear overtly, but rather, as what they represent.

And is it okay for radical Muslims to burn down cities, kill people, and disrupt the economy of all of Denmark over one cartoonist's political views? Absolutely not. Anymore than it's okay for radical Christians to get worked up over this. For one thing, both Christ and Mohammed taught tolerance. And for another, it's not socially acceptable.

Can't understand why people can't just see something they don't like, shut their eyes and walk away. But no, it's gotta be "I'm right, you're wrong, let's have a culture war and set everything ablaze!"


I haven't seen the cartoon, but the idea of it offends me. But if what you're saying is correct, then I agree with the sentiment of the cartoon (though not the sentiment that it is okay to depict Jesus Christ in the act of bestiality) - I am concerned by the blind support of most American Christians to the Republican party. They may have the moral issues down pat, but everything else is out of whack - ripping off the poor, downtrodden, old and helpless in favour of big-business - waging war on third-world countries in the name of democracy and freedom...I could go on, but you get the picture. In some aspects I'm right, and in others I'm left.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
That's why you should be glad you live in Australia!

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, it is pretty nice here. And the media does its job most of the time - giving the government a hard time...

There needs to be a middle wing - the body of the bird - people who are against killing anyone, be it third-world civilians or unborn babies.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: theredbaron

I haven't seen the cartoon, but the idea of it offends me. But if what you're saying is correct, then I agree with the sentiment of the cartoon (though not the sentiment that it is okay to depict Jesus Christ in the act of bestiality) - I am concerned by the blind support of most American Christians to the Republican party. They may have the moral issues down pat, but everything else is out of whack - ripping off the poor, downtrodden, old and helpless in favour of big-business - waging war on third-world countries in the name of democracy and freedom...I could go on, but you get the picture. In some aspects I'm right, and in others I'm left.


If you do want to see it, I linked to a copy of it in my original post.

I'm done talking about it. I don't even know why I posted it here in the first place. I guess I was in a posting mood that night, because I also wrote the longest blog post in my life. I was mildly offended, but I did get the joke behind it. It wasn't so much the cartoon itself that bothered me, but that they said they wouldn't publish th eMohammed cartoons out of respect, then turned around and published this.

The fallout has been incredible. It hit national news here in Canada, and was all over the right-wing blogosphere. The editor-in-chief was "forced to resign," and the Sheaf published an entire section this week of letters to the editor. They claim it was a "mistake" and a "miscommunication." Whether that's true or not, I still support the Sheaf. Independant media is an important aspect of society, and remains poignant even now.
Author
Time
Post link
They can print it because they know that Christians aren't going to go blow up an embassy over it. They don't deign not to print the Mohammed cartoons out of respect; they don't print them out of FEAR.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
They can print it because they know that Christians aren't going to go blow up an embassy over it. They don't deign not to print the Mohammed cartoons out of respect; they don't print them out of FEAR.


That's an interesting point. You're probably right.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
Seems like there's always some Jesus controversy, isn't there?
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: InfoDroid

To me, it seems to be a statement about mainstream Christianity's seemingly blind and unwavering endorsement (if not outright campaigning) of the Republican party over recent years and the current neo-conservative administration they helped to power.


That isn't mainstream Christianity. Don't be fooled into thinking it is. Its a loud, aggressive minority that gives the majority a very bad name. The trouble with the majority is that, up until Katrina, it wasn't speaking out enough. But those days are over, and the current administration is going to be mired in the waste-filled muck churned up by that storm for three years.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
Seems like there's always some Jesus controversy, isn't there?


It's because there is so many damn Christians. If you make one offensive comment, they all get pissed off.
Author
Time
Post link
Do we? I'm Christian, and I'm not pissed off. Don't go generalizing there ADM's right. Mainstream religion is starting to take a stance against the state, and it can only end in ugliness.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: sean wookie
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
Seems like there's always some Jesus controversy, isn't there?


It's because there is so many damn Christians. If you make one offensive comment, they all get pissed off.


Let's be reasonable, though, Sean. If a cartoon depicted someone you believe to be your Lord and Saviour - God Himself - in the act of bestiality, don't you think you'd have the right to be pissed off?

Even if it was a cartoon of Ghandi screwing a camel or something, I would understand an Indian/Ghandi admirer taking offense to that (not to mention be disappointed myself).

If I saw a cartoon of Mohammed committing despicable acts, I would be offended and disappointed by that, too - the point is, it's unsolicited and disrespectful.

Obviously nothing like this gives someone the right to go postal or anything like that...but certainly the right to take offense.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
The Christian solution is to avert ones eyes and pray for the soul who would come up with such a blasphemous depiction. The fundamental difference between the two religions is that Christian Clerics don't go inciting violence as the answer, while Muslim clerics are, for the most part, either outright inciting violence or silently standing by. Even that piece of shit Falwell doesn't go actually encouraging the bombings of abortion clinics, no matter how venomous he feels towards the pro-choice crowd, and he is the shining example of Fundamentalist Christian leadership. He may like 'em, but he isn't shouting from the pulpit for his followers to burn every clinic to the ground. (BTW, this is not an invitiation to get into a debate on that hot-button issue, it's just an analogy.)

Here is an appropriate quote to the whole religion-meets-free-speech argument, written by the late great Frank Zappa. It was the warning label he crafted for his own albums in response to the PMRC. While it centers around music, its spirit is very relevant to the whole cartoon controversy.

WARNING/GUARANTEE

This album contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor surpress.

In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Amendment Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American.

As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to keep you docile and ignorant), Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have outgrown -the ordinary-.

The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND THE POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video fundamentalists who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ).

If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree with you for the most part, but I think you will find that:

a) there are Christians physically persecuting/killing/attacking Muslims *somewhere* in the world (of course, this leaves doubt as to whether they are real Christians at all, let alone read their Bibles). I'm pretty sure that was the case in Kosovo, way back when.

b) honest, faithful, Qu'ran-believing Muslims would be all too quick to disown violent extremists, just as Christians would be quick to disown, say, the Ku Klux Klan; and could probably show you a verse in the Qu'ran that definitively condemns aggressive (as in non-defensive), violent action for any reason.
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, Baron is right. This 'we're better than Muslims because they get angry and kill people wheras we get angry and pray for their souls' has got to stop. My wife's American, and she is of the opinion that 'they' (Muslims) are 'all' that way. She, like many American and British people, believe that it is 'us' against 'them' and 'they' want to kill 'us'. But, although that is definitely the way in which public opinion is beginning to swing, it's not the case. Things are never that Black and White. The crazy, insane, hateful acts of violence and spreading of anomisity is beingg conducted by a minority of Muslims, and the rest I believe are against all this violence. So we have all got to stop tarring an entire group consisting of millions of people with the same brush being wielded by a small group of dangerous idiots...sorry, misled individuals.

Incidentally, one of the guys I work with is a very very nice, friendly, peaceful middle aged white English man. His wife is from Pakistan, so, many years ago, after studying her beliefs, he decided he would convert to Islam. Is he a terrorist? No. Would he have converted if the religion was evil and preached hatred. Definitely not. I have never met a nicer person.

War does not make one great.