Date: 10 Feb 2006 00:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hafoc.livejournal.com
I'm kind of tired of this whole cartoon silliness, aren't you? Still, it is kind of interesting that the same New York Times that condemned the Mohammad cartoons was up in arms to proclaim the worthiness of a portarit of the Virgin Mary done in elephant dung, and of course that artistic masterpiece "Piss Christ," a crucifix in a jar of urine.

Thornton Wilder said it best: Anytime you want to get close to human beings, you have to dig through layer after layer of nonsense.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 01:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewhitton.livejournal.com
They were published in September and no one said anything, and an Egyptian newspaper published them in November and no one said anything.

And now there's all this, months after the event. I wish everyone would grow up.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 00:55 (UTC)
chezmax: (Default)
From: [personal profile] chezmax
That's an awesome shirt.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 01:07 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bunyip.livejournal.com
Great shirt. :)

Date: 10 Feb 2006 02:15 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nekura-ca.livejournal.com
I really can't see how people could be offended by that. Is the juxtaposition of biology and religion really that offensive to some people? Is it so wrong to say "I don't follow your religion, don't tell me how to live?" Or are people saying "OMG, that's offensive!" because they're afraid someone else is going to, and want to be seen being "sensitive" to the "issue?"

Sorry, got off on a rant there. Great slogan. ^_^

Date: 10 Feb 2006 02:55 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewhitton.livejournal.com
A little background: The Minister For Health is a devoted Catholic, and as minister he had control over whether the "abortion pill" RU486 would be allowed into the country or not, hence rosaries/ovries. Yesterday the Senate voted to take that power off him and give it to the Theraputic Goods Administration (The Aussie version of the US's FDA. I don't know the name of Canada's version) who has control of every other drug. There was no real reason why the Minister had control over this one drug.

I don't know why people are getting so upset about it unless they see doing so to be some way of showing "balance" with the Mahommed Cartoons thing.

Date: 10 Feb 2006 03:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nekura-ca.livejournal.com
That makes more sense. From the articles, I was under the impression that it was the church that was trying to take away the normal duties of the minister. Either way, it's a perfectly valid statement to make, if a little inflammatory, and can't see how it constitutes "...derogatory remarks about a particular religion." But you're right, at this point in time, it's not a good idea to say anything that could possible be considered "offensive."

Date: 10 Feb 2006 09:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] weibchenwolf.livejournal.com
And I love how it was sponsored by a Christian Association :)

Date: 10 Feb 2006 10:13 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] annvole.livejournal.com
some "Christian" groups feel that Catholics are not true Christians (and vice versa). Since roseries are primarily used by Catholics, I can see why this can be considered offensive. Someone said that the Popemobile was the only protection allowed in the Catholic Church (refering to being against contraceptives like condoms) and that raised quite a stir.

Profile

den: (Default)
den

April 2023

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526 272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 1 January 2026 21:16
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios