The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Tell me you read those four quotes and couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

The point is, Christians may have been offended, but not because of some Christian doctrine.

If you take a representation of a religious figure and put it in urine or dung, chances are, I dunno, pretty good that you're going to offend some adherents of that religion. That's true whether you're talking about Christ, Mohammed, Zoroaster or Mithra. But Moslems have an additional, distinct reason to take offense -- namely, the prohibition on depicting Mohammed at all. The first sort of offense derives from the underlying message. As I understand it, the second sort of offense relates to the means.

eta: When people saw pictures of Serrano's "art," were they offended by:

- what Serrano had done,
- by the fact that he was getting funding from the NEA,
- by the newspaper's paying attention to it, or
- by the newspaper's decision to run a picture of it?

My recollection is that it was the first two. I don't recall anyone complaining about the last two.

I always knew what you were talking about. I always understand your argument and that is the problem. You always take the attitude that you wouldn't disagree with me if you really understood what I was saying. You always get that wrong. I always understand exactly what you are saying and, in my humble opinion, your reasoning is almost always really screwed up.

I just put down four of your quotes. No commentary no explanation no paraphrasing. How can you possibly fault me for just directly quoting you and not putting any editorial? All the words are yours and none of them are mine.

I think they not only show the absurity of your arguments but the contradiction. For example what you claim in the fourth quote, I think, is refuted by what you said in the first three. I could be wrong, but the evidence is there so no commentary is required. We don't have to argue about what you said or didn't say or what your were trying to say, or whether what you said then contradicts what you said later. It is all there in black and white and it stands on its own.