Playboy Insults Christianity
December 15, 2008 / 4:59 pm • By Dr. Melissa ClouthierPlayboy Insults Christianity
As long as they do a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin cover next time, it’s fine with me.
1 Trackback(s)
- Dec 16, 2008: My BLUE state - Page 14
6 Responses to “Playboy Insults Christianity”
December 16 2008 / 7:55 am
Reply
Of course they will! These are brave and edgy people. No doubt they will have the courage to show that ALL religions are silly.
Mark your calendar for next month!
December 16 2008 / 10:14 am
Reply
“As long as they do a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin cover next time, it’s fine with me.”
Won’t happen. It would take real cajones to poke fun at the planet’s most vile and dangerous superstition.
But hey, you got a mention at hotair, which can’t hurt any. You DO carry a gun, don’t you?
December 16 2008 / 11:38 am
Reply
Perhaps they could atone with a 10 page interview with a Mexican Cardinal who expresses his disdain with porn and the sanctity of women in religon.
December 16 2008 / 12:17 pm
Reply
It’s been suggested that, after defending the “The Mohammad Cartoons”, the West, and in particular Christianity, has no basis for protesting thia Playboy cover. I disagree. Most of us understood that many Muslims were offended by the cartoons. Their being offended is not what sparked the cartoon’s defense. The violent outrage which (far, far) too many used to vent their offended sensibilities did, however. I’ll defend Playboy’s RIGHT to publish that cover, while at the same time decry it as inappropriate and deliberately offensive. And I won’t set any cars on fire or seek to have anyone beheaded.
December 16 2008 / 2:06 pm
Reply
A Playboy cover and a newspaper editorial article aren’t exactly the same thing. Playboy was simply parodying culture for the sake of looking hip.
But what culture? Playboy claims that it was simply “reflect[ing] a Renaissance-like mood”:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/12/playboy-apologizes-for-cover-i.html
(If Playboy is referring specifically to Renaissance paintings, tell me – who is it that gets portrayed with similar head drapery in such paintings?)
Jyllands-Posten, by contrast, was publishing a commentary on a modern cultural phenomenon. This is the English translation of the text that accompanied the Mohammed cartoons:
“The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy