Hi. Nice looking blog.

I just stumbled by and thought I'd toss 2 cents into the ether.

Any artist worthy of publication, be it in the lowliest paper or the highest museum, is fully aware of what their imagery is saying and what it will incite. The purposeful usage of a religious figure is meant to engender such controversy and outrage. The usage of Jesus or Mohammad is purposeful and as such distracts from the artists supposed point.

I havent' seen the cartoon and as a Christian am not all that worried about it. I think that there would be other ways to make the same point about the marriage of religion and consumerism but sometimes smaller minds are incapable of thinking beyond the blatant and obvious. People can say what they wish some of the time. It all depends on who your insulting.

The quote from the Life of Pi was interesting. I haven't seen the movie. There is an obvious point to be made concerning the element of hypocricacy that some apparent religious people practice but in reality we are all at fault when it comes to homeless and starving children etc.

I can imagine Kate is hopping mad.

I'd check over there but her posts are predictable and I'd rather not give her the traffic.

I thought that there would be a lack of consistency on the issue, as there has been on others (i.e. Harper's recent stunts). What can you expect but hypocrisy from the wing nut crowd though.

They have been exceptionally quiet regarding the war on terror lately. Wonder why?

I love listening to John Gormley. His reactionary politics are always amusing.

I find it interesting the double standards we've seen played out during this controversy. How the so called proponents of free speach are decrying this cartoon's publication. While those who never would have allowed the Muhammad cartoons to be printed have no issue with this particular cartoon. I really feel like God is trying to teach us something here.

I hope you are feeling better.

Did you hear that Kevin Harvick is probably going to be racing a Toyota next year?

Cheers,

Paul

This disgusting cartoon is not trying to make a point - it was simply someone with no artistic skill (obviously) trying to see if they could get some of their garbage into a newspaper that a few people might see. Those two pictures have nothing to do with Christian culture selling out to consumerism.

This cartoon is different than the Muhammad ones. While I don't agree with printing that one either, it was making a statement about the artists perception of the radical muslims that give so many others a bad name. True to form, the very whackos that the artist was mocking reacted the way that everyone knew they would.

It's interesting that we don't see Christians around the world marching in the streets, setting fire to buildings and killing innocent people. Why is that?

"It's interesting that we don't see Christians around the world marching in the streets, setting fire to buildings and killing innocent people. Why is that?"

Huh?

Because the situations are quite different. This cartoon was published in a university's weekly paper, while the offending cartoon of the Muslim prophet was printed in a European daily and then reprinted by several others. Christians are not under attack as Muslims are in Iraq and are not as susceptable to having their emotions inflamed by extremists.

I saw the cartoon. It really doesn't make much sense to me. It is in poor taste and I don't think it has much to do with Christianity or Capitalism... Not worthy of publication except to get a reaction.

I don't agree with bashing any religion. That is not freedom of speech. It is just malicious. And while you are correct Becky that Jesus has put up with more than a distasteful cartoon, it doesn't make it right, newsworthy or show quality of journalism.

It seems to me that a lot of people are more upset with the fact that the Sheaf took the time and diligence to write a two page spread as to why the would NOT publish the Danish cartoon and then carelessly print an equally offensive cartoon that is not only offensive to the Christian faith but also to the Jewish. It is a blatent double standard and the excuses by the editor and others seem weak at best.

And true we are speaking of a University newspaper versus a global one but the readership of this paper still includes many who are offended by this type of journalism and have the right (and perhaps responsibiblty) to speak up at all levels.

Your thoughts??

Rick, Christians are under attack and hundreds, if not thousands lose their lives every year in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Despite that, Christianity does not seem to have the same type or radical wing that promotes so much hatred and violence. I have always wondered why that is.

Michelle, unfortunately Christianity has many extreme and radical groups that promote hatred and violence. Many of the white supremicist groups in N. America call themselves Christian Churches and many of the violent anti-choice groups who target and bomb abortion clinics are zealous Christians.

There is certainly no excuse for the behavior of those who do bomb abortion clinics and racists among Christian groups.

Let's be hoenst though, the number of Christians who perform acts of violence pales in comparison to Muslims who do so. That's my question - why is that?

George Bush is a "Christian" and responsible for an incredible amount of violence. Why is that?

The cartoon is little more than hate speech. It shouldn't be tolerated regardless of how well it is distributed.

Michelle,

I don't know of any numbers of Christians who violent vs numbers of Muslims who are violent. I'm not sure anybody does, but I wouldn't be suprised if they were proportional when divided out by social status.

Rick has a particularly good point. Much of the violence that the Christian world instigates is santitized and justified in the media.

On the main topic, I recieved an email from President McKinnon (I believe everyone on Campus got this) asking for an apology from the Sheaf for publishing the pig and jesus cartoon. I'm not sure how I feel about that. That the request came from someone in a position to ruin the student paper felt less like a request and more like overt pressure to restrain the paper's editorial freedom.

I saw the cartoon on Fark.com. Was it offensive to me? Yes. How am I reacting to it? I got me thinking. I started remembering about The PTL Club scandal from when I was about 10. Remember it was about someone using the funds they collected in the name of God and Jesus on stuff other than God and Jesus? There really are people out there that live the life that the cartoon is portraying. It's sad, but it's true.

The cartoon was meant to provoke thought. If people are unhappy about what it's portraying, then people need to get up and rectify it! Same with the Muslims upset about the Muhammad. Instead of killing and buring, as the cartoon is symbolizing Islam as doing, the ones that are peaceful and don't agree with violence need to recitfy the situtation. As a Christian, my job is not to protest about the cartoon, but to prove the cartoon wrong.

Also, the thing about freedom of speech is that you have to accept the offensive along with the stuff we approve. You don't have to agree with it. I sure don't agree with the wackos that come onto my campus calling me a whore because I wear shorts. However, the wacko has the right to preach his message, just I have the right to tell him he's a nutjob. (Not that I have. I just ignore the fool.)