You realize that we play right into liberals' hands when we got offended by this type of thing, right? Yes, it is extremely offensive. That being, said, let these juvenile minds do whatever they want. The real test comes afterwards. When illustrations of Muhammed were published, Muslims rioted and killed people. When illustrations of Jesus offended Christians, they complained, but no one died.

It comes under the heading of:"Feel my pain sucka!". Or:"Have you walked a mile in my shoes?" Maybe even:"Why didn't you practice the Golden Rule?" Ann Coulter is in the process of learning these lessons as we speak and it couldn't be happening to a nicer person. Peace

*Shakes head*

Lovely Steve, lovely. Yet another example of your wit and talent. Keep up the good work.

In the mean time I would have never heard of this is someone didn't tell someone else about it and then write an article about it. Same as the Muhammad ones. Some folks are purposefully spreading things like this around to stir up trouble.

Are they offensive? Sure, but in a limited area until one decides to spread them about as a "see see!" type thing.

Remember those who wish to insult do it to get a reaction. The worse thing one can do to them is show no reaction and ignore them.

Is this bad? Yes.
Do you have a right to complain about it? Sure.
Will it help? Nope.
Do I think this should be done on a public campus? Heck no! That should be the focus of debate, not on the pictures themselves.

Mark, all you have to do is read the insulting and demeaning attacks on Christianity that are posted right here on your blog, by bigots such as axis and TEO and others, to see that it has become fashionable among the small-minded to defame Christianity.

I imagine that the argument of "Loving God but hating religion" will surface, along the lines of "supporting the troops but not the war". Well, "Loving" God might be a stretch---I doubt they could bring themselves to that. But they might ACKNOWLEDGE God while at the same time attacking Christianity.

Your post also points out another interesting fact---that the Left just doesn't get it. Their sublety gene must be missing. They simply can't see the difference between cartoons which mildly point out some elements of Islam and foul drawings which denigrate an entire religious base.

Again, we can just be grateful we never have to inhabit those small cesspools that pass for minds in the radical Left.

BTW---can I float a trial balloon here? I'd like to try out the term "neorad". The term "neocon" is so popular on the Left, though it has no real meaning, I thought it appropriate to have a word to describe the new, rabidly hateful, determinedly spiteful, Bush-hating, religion-hating, loathing-powered radical lefty of the new millenium. So do you think "neorad" has a chance?

Leave it to steve to compare Jesus Christ to Ann Coulter. Thanks for making my point about obtuseness, stevie...

And will the Left ever get over this retaliation motivation for everythng they ever do? They decided that the only reason to disapprove of Clinton was HATRED and then they decided to "get even" by hating Bush. It's a bizarre labyrinth of psuedo-reasoning.

Neorad? Neorad... hmm...

*Mulls it over*

Try using it in your posts more and I think it might catch on.

Mark - Are you unaware of the fact the the real issue of blasphemy for the muslims in Danish newspaper case is the very depiction of Muhammed? You are not allowed to create or display images of Muhammed, whether he has a nuclear Turban on or not. Did you miss that in the press coverage? You are either completely insensitive to religions other than Christianity or you are just ignorant of some widely known facts.

I'm sorry, but you have to give the Christians some creidt here. I'm being serious.

When a cartoon of their Idol is published, they only react by posting a stupid blog entry, feigning anger. The radical Muslims - well, we know what they are capable of after the Danish cartoons. Simply despicable.

The bottoom line is this - when you believe so strongly in something so absurd as religion, and a "Savior" which you have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF - well, you're going to be ridiculed. And rightly so; you deserve every last bit of satire. Especially when you attempt to stake the higher moral ground because of your beliefs (by the way - that is the MAIN reason why so many liberals - rational people - resent you conservative Christians).

But again - there seem to be many, many more Muslims who react violently to this satire than do the Christians, and for this, the Christians will always have the upper hand.

The depiction of the Lord is beyond the bounds of discourse - it is an attack on another people, pure and simple. The Danish cartoons were bad, too, esp. in light of the comment that they were created deliberately as a "test." But these pictures are beyond offending Christians; they're in poor taste, and not becoming of students, who are supposed to be rational, not radicals.

I suppose, in our era of "free speech at all costs," I need to back up what I'm saying. So here goes:

The difference between speech as rationality and speech as aggressiveness rests on one's ability to see whether there is any such thing as free speech or not.

The truth is, the 99 out of a 100 times we don't offend anyone, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with anything. Free speech in this sense has existed throughout the centuries, even under the worst despotisms. This is the speech most think is endangered if there is any attack on free speech, because "most people" are paranoid, quite frankly.

So if free speech is only free when you can offend someone and the law is on your side, then we're not really talking about "freedom" here as much as one's right to offend another to a certain degree. Set up this way, there are always limits on "free speech." Currently, you can't yell "fire" in a current movie theater.

But maybe we should consider how far insulting people can go, because what's going on in Oregon is really close to starting a war, and it's pretty clear the people who posted those pics of Jesus are the sorts of trash that I wouldn't allow near my kids and not deserving of rights of any sort. Given that speech allows them to participate in the political in the highest level - the ability to persuade is all the President really has, in the end, for no one wants to order things into motion unless others are sold on it - should they be allowed to speak in such a way? It seems less than human to allow them to speak in any way, given how much consideration many of us who consider ourselves human give each other.

Back to the 'neo'. 'Neorad', nah. Will not catch on. However the old term 'neo-Nazi' has a nice ring and should replace the term 'neo-con', it would be apt.

The difference between publishing Mohammed cartoons and offensive Christian cartoons is this: The student editors of the "Insurgent" were able to retain their heads. That would not have happened in the Middle East. O I'm sorry, you could probably still keep your head in Western style Israel.

Is anyone surprised these pictures are coming from a neorad rag called The Insurgent, whose logo is someone holding a gun?

Should we ignore them like gozer said? If you do a search for mohammad pictures, there are hundreds of pages with links to the comics. Do we want hundreds of pages linked to those disgusting pictures of Jesus?

On the other hand, do we stand up for Jesus and organize a worldwide peaceful protest against this blasphemy?

I'm going to ask my pastor his thoughts on the issue.

BTW, I choose to ignore maf53 because it is exactly what he doesn't want me to do.

extramedium: Images of Mohammad are to be restricted within Islam (although, hypocritically, this isn't even strictly true among many Muslims) in order to prevent idolatry of the "prophet". Danes are not within Islam, Mohammad is not their "prophet", and they are under only the restrictions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not Shariah Law.

The bottoom line is this - when you believe so strongly in something so absurd as religion, and a "Savior" which you have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF - well, you're going to be ridiculed.

This doesn't exactly sound 'tolerant' to me. Demeaning, insulting, yes. Tolerant definitely not. I work with plenty of people who disagree with me on religion. To my left sits an atheist, and self-professed liberal. Diagonal to me sits a Salvationist. I myself and Catholic.

I find all of our conversations very respectful. My atheist friend doesn't believe in God, but he says that he respects that I do, and respects that I feel God's presence in prayer, though he personally thinks I'm just feeling something inside of me. I respect his right to not believe. I don't insult him. He likes to talk, I like to listen, and when he's ready to listen I'll say how I feel.

But I understand that many people use blogs to enjoy hurling insults, rather than engage in discussion. I just wish people would give my religion the respect that I try to give others, including my atheist friend.

-Lee

"BTW, I choose to ignore maf53 because it is exactly what he doesn't want me to do." - Kimberly

Umm, what? Do I know you or something?

Better get your pastor's approval before replying.

*Sighs*

Why is believing in something beyond one's self not "rational?" Are the Buddhists irrational too? The Taoists? Muslums? Hindus? Wiccans? Anyone who has any belief in things that haven't been proven yet?

Mark, all you have to do is read the insulting and demeaning attacks on Christianity that are posted right here on your blog, by bigots such as axis and TEO and others, to see that it has become fashionable among the small-minded to defame Christianity.

-- Excuse me sucka, but I haven't indulged in any demeaning attacks on christianity. I have pointed out some people that were supposedly practicing christians indulging in unchristianlike behavior, but theres a very distinct difference.

Theres a few old sayings that would seem to apply here.

1) Religion can be a good thing ... taken in moderation

2) Whats good for the goose is good for the gander

3) People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Personally, yes it is highly offensive, however I did notice that many Christians were all saying "what's the big deal" when the outrage over the Islamic cartoons. I agree that muslims went WAY overboard about that, but they found it offensive, so if you can't respect other peoples religion, how can you honestly expect other people to respect yours?

Respect is a 2 way street. You hypocritical conservatives always seem to forget that.

I always have to laugh at the younguns and the uneducated in here who toss about the "nazi" card. Like they would know a jackboot if one kicked em in the head. But then what do you expect from haters! They are no better than the terrorists. Hate leads to vilifying people b/c the hater has no self respect, no moral base, uses distain and contempt. They are cowards living in fear. They blather mightily, but I saw the same kind of cowards cry and whimper as they went to the hangmans noose in WW2.
Christians are use to being vilified by the great unclean and unwashed. We laugh at their pathetic attempts and pray for their souls. We Christians go about our daily work and charitable work and ask nothing in return. Our wealth comes in our faith and our beliefs. Rich in the Glory of our God we are never alone and never afraid. I would rather have the love of God and his Son surround me than the deep dark eternal sadness that surrounds the haters. They will never know the light.

extra,

You might try reading what I wrote before commenting.

Of course the Moslems hold that any depiction of Muhammad is an offense - but there are offenses, and then there are offenses. The violence which resulted from the Danish cartoons was of the manufactured variety - most Moslems had nothing to do with it.

That aside, the point I'm making here is that I don't see the need to insult anyone's religion - if my Moslem brothers are offended by depictions of Muhammad, then I won't make any such depictions. It doesn't harm me not to do so, and it helps keep things smooth between myself and the Moslems - of course, I do ask that they show some respect for my religion, and the vast majority of Moslems do show such respect.

What this magazine did is just a more egregious than usual example of the insult to religion - and especially Christianity - prevalent in our society. Da Vinci Code, Last Temptation of Christ, P*** Christ, etc are other examples of this - they can be made, but there is no reason to make such things.

As stated above, finding this kind of thing and making it national by means of your blog does nothing but further divide.

Do you all see that this is the University of Oregon? Do you know how many students attend that school? Do you know how many 'student papers' are published? This is not the 'school paper' or anything. Perhaps you all never went to a large state school, but this kind of fringe paper is just something some 'freakish' and 'ignorently self absorbed artsy' students would put together. I love some of those people, but they are sometimes quite idiotic.

This kind of complaining reminds me of our 'lawsuit nation' where everyone will find something to bitch out and someone will eventually sue.

If you really want to blame something on the ugliness of religion in America, I'd look at business.

Very few corporations are marketing anything Christian, nor are they promoting anything with values in mind. Sunday hours keep expanding and more importance is placed on materialism everyday.

Capitalism will eventually wipe out religion.

This is tolerated for two reasons. First, obviously because it's Christianity. Second, it's tolerated because it's a university. Any anti-american, anti-christian dogma is permissible as long as it's done in the name of academic freedom.