Comments on: Playboy Insults Christianity

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:06:25 +0000

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

By: My BLUE state - Page 14

My BLUE state - Page 14 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:44:35 +0000

[...] what happens with it. The Mexican edition of Playboy is already trying a similar angle. I like this lady’s idea better, try displaying a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin [...]

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:16 +0000

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.

By: nobozons

nobozons — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:38:36 +0000

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.

By: TX CHL Instructor

TX CHL Instructor — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:14:13 +0000

“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?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:55:24 +0000

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!