Obscene Picture in "Merry Christmas" thread

[sunny]

Please tell me if I am over reacting by wanting Seamus to take down that picture in the "Merry Christmas" thread. I just find it obscene in the extreme but I don't want anyone thinking my own religious leanings are influencing the fair administration of my mod duties.

[Jeff]

I agree. I've deleted it.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 527#154527

[chiggerbit]

I find it offensive, too, commented after I saw this post here, to no effect. I could go get nastier, but then it will only bring the thread to the top again, which I'd rather not do. But the urge is almost irresistible. I already have a reputation for deleting from when things were out of hand. Do you want me to do that instead, sunny?

[Jeff]

I already have a reputation for deleting from when things were out of hand. Do you want me to do that instead, sunny?

This one's on me.

[sunny]

Whew, thanks to both of you. It was making me sick just knowing it was there...

I take comfort in the fact that the same thing should/would have happened had it been a cartoon disparaging (is that a strong enough word for that cartoon?) Judaism or Islam.

[chiggerbit]

I see I cross-posted with you again, Jeff.

[Jeff]

I take comfort in the fact that the same thing should/would have happened had it been a cartoon disparaging (is that a strong enough word for that cartoon?) Judaism or Islam.

Yeah, I really want to be consistent about this.

Lurking on Democratic Underground recently I've seen lots of anti-Christian venom that just depresses the hell out of me. There are a lot of people there who can't distinguish evangelicalism from the historical stream of the faith (often the same people who are quick to distinguish Wahhabism from mainstream Islam).

[chiggerbit]

Well, if I'm honest, there was a thread recently on Mormonism that made me uncomfortable, one that was really disrespectful of their beliefs. And the Muhammad cartoons in Europe also made me uncomfortable, but thankfully there didn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on them here, from what I remember. I think there are certainly some aspects of different religions that deserve criticism, and some leaders of some religions deserve extreme criticism at times, but generally I prefer to defer to various religions and their followers with respect, even though I'm irreligious myself. However, being irreligious means that I insensitively step on toes quite often, I'm sure.

That being said, I do have to admit to being biased against scientology and Sun Myung Moonism.

[Jeff]

I don't think all faiths are deserving of the same respect - and some are deserving of derision - but it does make me uncomfortable sometimes as an admin arbitrating which ones do and which ones don't.

[sunny]

I don't think all faiths are deserving of the same respect - and some are deserving of derision - but it does make me uncomfortable sometimes as an admin arbitrating which ones do and which ones don't.

I get that completely. I think a distinction should be made between the religious organizations which can and do exploit the sincere beliefs of their followers, and the actual Gods/icons of worship. Now, if Santa had been boinking a priest or Baptist minister?

Actually, I get the point of the cartoon-consumerism giving the shaft to the true meaning of xmas etc, but did it have to use such a disgusting image of Jesus to make the point? I'm glad I did not have to personally intervene as I am not objective, and again I thank you both for your sensitivity.

Btw, what do Scientologists worship, exactly?

[chiggerbit]

but did it have to use such a disgusting image of Jesus to make the point?

It was pornographic, regardless of a person's particular faith, and therefore insensitive to a number of members here who say they have been victimized by sexual abuse.

[chiggerbit]

At the least.

[Jeff]

Yeah, that's a good point. Religious sensitivities aside, we shouldn't allow pornographic content.

[sunny]

but did it have to use such a disgusting image of Jesus to make the point?

It was pornographic, regardless of a person's particular faith, and therefore insensitive to a number of members here who say they have been victimized by sexual abuse.

My regrettable blindness to that issue is the best argument for my having deferred the decision to both of you.

[chiggerbit]

Well, ok, it's even worse because of the use of a religious iconic symbol (who really knows what Jesus really looked like, but we always recognize the "likeness"), therefore totally insensitive, or worse. But when I imagine the figure bent over the table being George Bush, I'm still uncomfortable. Maybe I'm a prude.