You would think even Playboy magazine had limits. It doesn't.
The famous skin magazine found a way to attack Christians and push porn at the same time. The magazine's Mexican copy featured "a model wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and breasts," according to Reuters Life. "The magazine, which hit newsstands on December 1 as ceremonies began leading to Friday's pilgrimage to the Mexico City shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe," the article continued.
On the cover: "We Love You, Maria" in Spanish. The company printed 100,000 copies of this outlandish Christmastime cover. Another picture inside the magazine apparently features her standing in front of stained glass - just in case you missed the offensive comparison.
The outcry was appropriately swift. Even Playboy can admit something goes too far - afterward.
Here's how Reuters described the apology:
In a statement, Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises Inc said the Mexican edition of the magazine is published by a licensee, and the company did not approve or endorse the cover.
"While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies," the statement said.
Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."
Sure, mocking the Virgin Mary during the Christmas season wasn't meant to offend anyone or boost sales. First offend, then lie. Good combo.
—Dan Gainor is director of the Business and Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Don't talk to me about soft core
December 13, 2008 - 20:46 ET by Spinningplates2All porn is dangerous. Love your wife, not your self.
So true. Porn degrades,
December 14, 2008 - 19:50 ET by lotrSo true. Porn degrades, dehumanizes and damages all parties it afflicts.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Raul Sayrols, publisher of
December 13, 2008 - 19:26 ET by bigtimerRaul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."
Lie like a rug after your intentional agenda was full-filled as you stuff your pockets with jingle.
Here is another outrage as far as I am concerned.
Merry Christmas all.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
wow, bt!
December 13, 2008 - 19:51 ET by clinging to my guns and my religionsaw that reuters article earlier in the day and have burned about ten thousand calories today just shaking my head. just cannot believe the sacrilege.....
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
but what about the Caganer
December 13, 2008 - 20:11 ET by amiesIf you think either the Obama wise man or the playboy cover is an outrage, what do you think of this?
well, armies....
December 13, 2008 - 20:19 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion... i think that's terrible, too, but at least when you have a "caganer", you know whatcha got!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
They have an Obama Caganer
December 13, 2008 - 20:23 ET by amiesThey have an Obama Caganer this year apparently
is it the new...
December 13, 2008 - 20:27 ET by clinging to my guns and my religion..."o" action figure, lol? seems like the perfect pose for him!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke
ctmg.. Yeah the perfect
December 13, 2008 - 21:47 ET by bigtimerctmg..
Yeah the perfect position to show exactly what he is going to do to all of us out here in the real world.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Well Playboy has
December 14, 2008 - 07:31 ET by motherbeltWell Playboy has apologized.
"While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend
anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as
Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies," the statement said.
At least they admit the offense and didn't go with the "we apoligize to anyone it may have offended."
But then they blew it:
Raul Sayrols, publisher of Playboy Mexico, said in a statement, "The
image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe
or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a
Renaissance-like mood on the cover."
Right. The lady in the veil and the stained glass window signify "Renaissance" not a church. And it never occurred to them that "Te adoramos Maria" might be interpreted as referring to the Virgin.
ha!
December 14, 2008 - 19:54 ET by katainkentnevermind that the majority of the Renaissance period of artwork was church funded and devoted to paintings of religious figures. *rolls eyes*
"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama
There is a Mexican Playboy? Awesome
December 13, 2008 - 20:07 ET by PopularTechAmen
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Playboy International Editions - Nice
December 13, 2008 - 20:11 ET by PopularTechPlayboy International Editions - Nice
Man HH, knows how to make money.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Come to the UK, we have Nuts
December 13, 2008 - 20:12 ET by amiesCome to the UK, we have Nuts and Zoo for under a quid and they are not top shelf either
Interesting
December 13, 2008 - 20:13 ET by PopularTechI just had no idea Playboy had international editions.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Well for adverts etc they
December 13, 2008 - 20:17 ET by amiesWell for adverts etc they would at least need different print runs so why not do entire different editions?
I know some womans magazines had to be reprinted for the Republic of Ireland v the UK to remove adverts for contraception as late as the early 90's
I dont really see the big
September 21, 2009 - 12:41 ET by paulssI dont really see the big deal about this I mean no one really cares when women are dressed up as Santas wife. And some people do like women in uniform any for that matter. In the back of the magazine you see ads for female escorts and i'ts nothing new to see women dressed up.
It doesn't surprise me
December 13, 2008 - 20:16 ET by taterIt doesn't surprise me actually that Playboy would steep that low. In their sinful business I'm sure hatred of the Blessed Mother and Christ go hand in hand. Rather I choose to honor Mary.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.
“‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
thee!’ No creature has ever said anything that was more pleasing to me,
nor will anyone ever be able to find or say to me anything that pleases
me more.”
Our Lady to Saint Mechtilde
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Not suprising on the one
December 13, 2008 - 21:21 ET by alamojbNot suprising on the one hand that the rascals at Playboy would do this. Mary was certainly blessed of God to be the one to give birth to the Messiah.
However, the Bible does not teach that she remained a virgin AFTER the virgin Birth of Christ. As a matter of fact, it teaches just the opposite.
Note Matthew 1: 18,24-25
Verse 18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the holy Ghost......
Verses 24-25: "...Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."
In context, clearly "...knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son..." says two things:
1) He did not have sexual relations with her before the birth of Jesus. Since he took her all the way to Bethlehem for the tax thing clearly he knew her, was with her, etc. So the "knew her not till..." is speaking of carnal knowlege.
2) He DID have sexual relations with her at some point AFTER the birth JESUS.--"...till..."
Also note that in Matthew chapter 13: 54-57 mentions four brothers, by name, and an unnumbered number of sisters of Jesus. Jesus even seems to imply that his household did not honor him as a prophet. (see verse 57)
Also note that Matthew 12: 46-50 mentions Jesus' mother with his brothers. (half-physical brothers - Same mother- different Father/father) Jesus then points out what can be called his (true) brothers and sisters and mother are those who "...shall do the will of my Father..."
Also note that John 1: 1-17 speaks of Jesus (Word) as being in existence with God at the creation- and "...was God..".
So Mary was the mother of Jesus' physical body, but she was not the mother of his Deity.
John 3:1-21 Jesus speaks of his purpose for being born into the World.
What kind of a sick mind
December 13, 2008 - 21:38 ET by ScarletWhat kind of a sick mind comes up with something like this?
Actually,
December 13, 2008 - 21:47 ET by mizflame98I expected something that kind of magazine cover from Larry Flynt
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
I wonder if this decision
December 13, 2008 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerI wonder if this decision for this cover had anything to do with Hefner's daughter retiring...I heard she was or already had...just curious if anyone knows.
I just wonder if she would have approved this is why I am curious.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Don't kid yourself...
December 14, 2008 - 19:53 ET by lotr... Hefner is a scumbag too.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
Only the octogenarian fool
December 14, 2008 - 11:37 ET by semolina_filcherOnly the octogenarian fool in his pajama suit can come up with this blasphemy. Oh and the cold babes around him.
As a Christian, this is
December 13, 2008 - 22:39 ET by mostlymoderateAs a Christian, this is disturbing. What would happen if there was Mohammad on Playboy in an orgy-like setting? Or what about an Auschwitz sex scene? How about making the Dalai Lama a pimp? Yeah, THOSE would somehow be offensive but screw the Christian, right?
We live in uncertain times
December 14, 2008 - 11:41 ET by semolina_filcherWe live in uncertain times and in times as such, men are tested...just think, in 37 days, a pretender will come to power and despite his promises of a better America, all will go down the drain. Someone needs to shut off the spigot less we want immoralities run rampant in this once decent, God fearing American society.....
Read your Bible a little more closely ...
December 13, 2008 - 22:41 ET by mustangsallyThe Greek "Heos" does not imply sexual relations following Jesus' birth. The conjunction is used to indicate a select period of time without implying change in the future. For example, consider Matthew 28:20:
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age"
Does this mean that Jesus will no longer be with us at the "end of the age"? Of course not.
Other examples are found in Genesis 8:7, 26:13, Numbers 20:17, Deuteronomy 2:15, 34:6, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, 2 Samuel 6:23, Isaiah 14:2, 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13, 1 Maccabees 5:54, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 18:34, Matthew 26:36, Matthew 28:20, John 4:49, Romans 8:22, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 2:25-26.
On the second issue, "brethren" (Greek = adelphos) does not always mean first-degree sibling. It can mean same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3), any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29), persons with like interests (Mt 5:47), distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5), Persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9), mankind in general (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17), the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17), all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). In other words, just because certain people are referred to as brethren of Jesus, this certainly does not automatically mean that they were His first-degree siblings.
"On the second issue,
December 13, 2008 - 23:41 ET by alamojb"On the second issue, "brethren" (Greek = adelphos) does not always mean first-degree sibling."
Yes, you are right. Brethern does not always mean sibling. Neither does"Father" always mean your parent as we think of it. The word translated "father" could also mean ancestor.
But from context it is clear the people in Nazereth were speaking of Joseph, Mary and Siblings. Look at Matthew 13: 54-58.
Verse 55-56: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethern, James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
See also Mark 6: 1-6
"from the context" ...
December 14, 2008 - 16:39 ET by mustangsallyHow does the context suggest siblings any more than extended family? The Greek "adelphos", as well as the underlying aramaic word (Matthew wrote in Aramaic) essentially means "kin".
Here is Martin Luther himself on this issue:
If Jesus had siblings, then why from the Cross (John 19:26-27) did Jesus entrust her into the care of the John the Evangelist? Yet Jesus was very careful assure that John would "take her into his care". This would not make sense if there were other siblings to provide for her.
The early Church fathers, moreover, attested to this interpretation:
" But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We
believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was
married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it.
Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of
marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly.
If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that
Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the
Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with
a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not
continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary
was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a
holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere
written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was
supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who
was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a
virgin."
Jerome,The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D.
383),in NPNF2,VI:344
"How does the context
December 14, 2008 - 18:10 ET by alamojb"How does the context suggest siblings any more than extended family? The Greek "adelphos", as well as the underlying aramaic word (Matthew wrote in Aramaic) essentially means "kin". "
I could ask you the same thing. How does the context suggest cousins rather than siblings? "Carpenter's son"-Joseph, "Mary"-mother. And then just skip over sibling and go straight for cousins? Only because of your own presuposition.
As far as Martin Luther is concerned, do you hold to all his beliefs?
I would hardly call Jerome "Early church" . By your own quote he was over 350 years removed from the Lord. He also makes a strange assumption: "For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication..." Wow! Like Christian men do not struggle with Lust. Last time I checked , sex with one's wife is justified- even encouraged in the Bible. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9
As far as John at the cross, clearly something had happened to Joseph by this point. Possibly his other children as well. As I mentioned above also, Jesus hinted that there were those of his household who did not honor him as a Prophet. Perhaps Mary was the only one who understood- and her full understanding seems to have taken a while.
Your initial post ..
December 14, 2008 - 18:54 ET by mustangsallyYou made two false arguements in your initial post: 1) that the preposition "until" implies sexual relations and 2) that "brothers" implies siblings. Both arguments are manifestly false. So, you are wrong on Scripture. Second, you are wrong on tradition. The Church fathers, early Church Councils, and even the reformers Luther and Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Third, you are wrong on whether it was "fitting" or appropriate for Mary to have remained celebate after the Virgin Birth. It may be unthinkable for you, but for God all things are possible. Is it too great a miracle that Mary would dedicate herself entirely to our Savior or that God would give her a vocation which extended beyond the "biological"?
Brother/sister/cousin,We
December 14, 2008 - 23:17 ET by alamojbBrother/sister/cousin,
We have already risked bringing down the wrath of the administrators on our heads. So this is my last response to you.
I refer you to a site which discusses this. Much of what it says I have already pointed out to you from my own studies. This discussion with you has been informative. It was in my reading on the link I provid below that I found the reference to the Old Testament Messianic Psalm 69. The Psalmist/ Prophet David seems to speak on the very subject we now speak on:
http://www.carm.org/catholic/brothers.htm
Alamojb
Don't mess with the Mother of God ...
December 15, 2008 - 10:10 ET by mustangsallyIf you are concerned about the "wrath" of the moderators, perhaps you should think twice next time before you take unnecesary swipes at Catholic tradition with specious arguments; especially ones which you cannot substantiate. You have failed on all grounds to make your case: Scriptural, traditional, and rational. Now you want to refer me to a website? I could refer you to a dozen other websites with better reasoning and fuller discussion of the issues. Instead of reading specious websites, you should familiarize yourself with historic Christianity and find out why Mary is venerated as more than just a biological conduit of the Redeemer. You might then not be so quick to disparage the Mother of our Savior.
I could give a rats arse.
December 13, 2008 - 22:44 ET by CrashI could give a rats arse. But, if they're dodging the intent by saying, "We worship you, Maria" was not intended to shock ... they are full of crap. They should try the same stunt with the pedophile Mohammed and see who keeps their head.
Crash... Amen! You said
December 13, 2008 - 22:48 ET by bigtimerCrash...
Amen!
You said it all.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
it was intended...
December 14, 2008 - 00:02 ET by mawendt... to get free exposure (umm... wrong word, here?). you can't buy advertisement like this, particularly a skin mag, and free, no less.
it's getting its free money's worth here, at NB. shoulda been ignored.
you know the intent was to shock and offend, and if the apology was real, they would pull all the mags at their cost.
don't hold your breath.
We can't ignore this
December 14, 2008 - 00:21 ET by Dan GainorWe can't ignore garbage like this. Yes, unfortunately, it givens something this horrible the coverage the magazine wanted. But it's things like this that remind Christians what America is up against.
if you mean...
December 14, 2008 - 09:05 ET by mawendt,,, 'garbage like this' being pornography in general, well, yeah.
but if you mean 'garbage like this' in just this particular monthly issue, then the focus is messed up.
i and most of the people i socialize with never would of noticed, or thought of, PB. that's not part of our lives. so PB did what they intended - got those who never consider porn to take note of the publisher, and the cover (prominantly displayed on many outlets, as well as NB). it woulda been better to piss off PB by putting a nice big black stripe on the cover, here at NB - magazines all hate any editing to their work.
now if you want to start up a national movement to eradicate porn, i'm with you. maybe this might be a good provoker, for someone. this, however, is a lot less 'provocative' than Magalethorpe, or many of the hollywood movies, books and mags for sale at Barnes&Nobles, or even the common, run-of-the-mill daily crap poured out by a secular society.
i'm just thinking the general outrage coming up for just this one, particular subject is kinda misplaced.
AN ASIDE...maybe
December 14, 2008 - 12:25 ET by reelman46The atheist sign flap of December 2008 brings to mind 2 sayings...
the 1st is very profound...deep and true...
"An understandable God is no God at all"
and this one I made up...which is similar.
"A reasonable atheist is no atheist at all".
(if your mind wanders to "A happy liberal is no liberal at all"..I understand)
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
May I Give A Secular Point Of View?
December 15, 2008 - 23:55 ET by The7SticksI'm just reading some of these comments, and I'm just thinking to myself, "What the Hell is wrong with you people?" I decided to download the so-called "offending copy" of this Mexican Playboy, and I have to take the editor's word for it, it doesn't seem to be anything like the Virgin Mary or Virgin Guadalupe or whatever it seems to be mocking. I saw at least twenty photos of the model (whose name is Maria Florencia Onori, so she's not just some piece of meat that all of you must think we think she is.), and they're right: The photo shoot seems to convey a Renaissance-type of style, and since many Renaissance paintings tend to use religious imagery it not such an explicit way, you could see a couple of stained glass windows here and there.
When I hear that it is only liberals who are thin-skinned, conservatives are one to talk because if anything, if their skin was any thinner and you pricked them with a needle, they'd pop like a balloon of blood and guts. And this isn't a particularly kinky Playboy shoot because you can barely even see Ms. Onori's pubic region (And there would be plenty of chances in twenty photos.) I just got my latest copy of Playboy, and there in it is Carmen Electra flaunting everything, making this so-called sacrilege pale in comparison.
I might be outraged if it was depicting American soldiers in a despicable light, but I could care less about a bunch of whiny Christians who can't seem to stomach a beautiful image like the shapely female form. And I kind of doubt that Mapplethorth would have made something as tame as this compared to his "Piss Christ" installations. But that's just me and my Playboy lifestyle, which I'm proud of and not going to apologize for.
-"Ourageous! What blasphemy! I gotta do something!"
"Bob, there's nothing you can do."
"Oh well, I guess I'm gonna have to develop a sense of humor."
- From "A Very Special Freakin' Sweet Family Guy Christmas"
7... Please keep your
December 16, 2008 - 00:25 ET by bigtimer7...
Please keep your rose-colored glasses on...never take them off...and whatever you do, don't ever leave us here...you and your posts are truly a barrel of laughter.
Nothing like laughing with the trolls.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt... Don't you mean
December 16, 2008 - 00:30 ET by Clear thinkerbt...
Don't you mean 'laughing at"?
Global Warming Horse Poop!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Ah heck Ct...I debated
December 16, 2008 - 00:38 ET by bigtimerAh heck Ct...I debated between "at" or "with"...."with" won.
I'm in a semi-generous mood at the moment.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Christmas spirit and all
December 16, 2008 - 00:41 ET by Clear thinkerChristmas spirit and all that, right?
Global Warming Horse Poop!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
LOL Ct...Yeah...I'm not
December 16, 2008 - 00:47 ET by bigtimerLOL Ct...
Yeah...I'm not quite in the bah-humbug mood yet...
You just never know when that happens...I had to take a hot shower earlier to cool off after the O greenie presser this afternoon...just about finally mellowed out for the evening, going to hit the sack soon...
I tell you Ct....seriously, I just about give up, I so much dread what all is going to happen to this country with this administration...and people are not going to put the blame on O, or what congress will ram-rod through, the msm will make sure of that, as we are all going to be strangled to death slowly out here in the real world with what is coming on down the pike, which will last for decades with the judges that will fly through, on top of the ones they already use, depend on now, from sea to shining sea.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
§ Bt!!! Don't U go anywhere!!!
December 16, 2008 - 01:06 ET by TheSterI know I have been off a while....BUT....
We will all need each other Jan 21st!!!
I'm gonna get me one of those "How to build a Wind Farm For DUMMIES"books....win a Billion dollar Contract....and I'll hire YOU to paint Bunnies and Unicorns on them.
I'll pay you 1 million per Turbine!!!
Did I turn that Frown Upside down Yet?!?!?
Even better....We will listen to Barry Manilow sings the best of the 80's Tunes!!! YEAH!!!
Ster.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Ster... Well....
December 16, 2008 - 01:11 ET by bigtimerSter...
Well.... ;-)
As for the Barry Manilow thing....maybe one or two.
Catch ya later.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
The7Sticks, from another secular mind...
December 16, 2008 - 04:34 ET by amiesI whole-heartily agree. Art is supposed to be provocative, and compared to a lot of renaissance art (which as you state this shoot is influenced by) these pictures are tame.
Christians should spend far more time being Christian rather than panicking at every little thing that could possibly in a round about way have a slight at their religion.
I won't even start on the fact its the Virgin Mary in the pictures and what I have heard some so-called Christians (some that people on this site would respect) have said about Catholicism
amies, art and Christians
December 16, 2008 - 06:25 ET by AgnosticArt as an expression need not be provocative. While I agree with the point I believe you are trying to make there is no reason to be predisposed to believe that a piece of art be anything other than an expression of the artist. That expression need not be provocative. It is our culture that has attached reverence upon the stimulation art has upon the audience and not the expression of the artist. Perhaps the expected stimulation created by artistic expressions allows the critics to feel more important or possibly creates a connection between artist and the audience.
As far as Christians not being offended, they have the right to be offended especially at a time when the country that promises religious freedom is restricting the rights of Christians in order to give special rights to other religions. The secular world is growing in influence and other religions are gaining in prominence. Facing similar challenges any group would feel threatened by even the most innocuous of attacks. When these attacks are frequent and very public it must seem like an assault.
While not a believer I respect the morality and much of the character instilled in the social fabric of the US by men and women of the Christian faith. Also I believe life is too short to feel contempt for other people’s beliefs if they don’t adversely affect society or my life. The secular liberal attack against Christianity is a cowardly attack that is reminiscent of a bratty child that taunts an older child that will not fight back. They are cowardly because they opt to attack a religion which will not take their heads for blasphemy and bratty because after the attack they smugly crow look-at-me.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic,
December 16, 2008 - 06:41 ET by amiesI agree with your respect for the morals of Christianity but you have to understand I make a distinction between types of Christians that I should have explained first.
1) Moral Christians - these are the ones I have respect for. These are the Christians who act out Jesus' teachings of love, compassion and charity. These people respect me for me, understand that I have no belief in God and allow me my belief in science and humanity. These Christians are also rarely offended by such things as a picture in Playboy and don't believe their religion is under constant attack from the atheists/agnostics/liberal mindsets. I got out of my way to avoid offense to these people as they do me no harm and sometimes I wish I had their faith.
2) Arrogant Christians - Anti all the above. I do not take kindly to my beliefs being ridiculed either. I believe in evolution, gay rights and equality and more and more I find these beliefs being mock and belittled by people in this group. They do not take kindly to intellectual discussion that does not agree with their mind set.
Call it youth (I am 24) but if you are going to mock my beliefs then I am allowed to mock yours.
I live in Northern Ireland, and I have yet to see Christianity being harmed or sidetracked at the expense of another religion. Instead I am slowly finding my right to freedom of speech and expression of my beliefs being quashed. Look up Iris Robinson for an example.
As for the art (the entire point of the post lol) its a very personal matter as to what is liked. One of my favourite pieces is in the Vatican (the name of it has completely escaped me now)
Amies
Moral/Arrogant Christians,
December 16, 2008 - 07:19 ET by AgnosticI have never been fortunate enough to visit Ireland though it is on a short list of places I would like to visit upon retirement. It is not so much I feel that Christianity is under a full scale attack in America but via a biased media the attack against Christianity is front and center and any good created by Christian acts is ignored. It has cause a slow erosion of positive feelings for the Christian Church in many parts of America. Also, the political correct media are sure to seek to destroy anyone making a negative statement about a member of a PC protected class but there is actual encouragement from the media to attack not only Christians but anyone displaying typically Christian behavior.
I’ve read enough to know that outside of living in Northern Ireland there is little chance I would ever truly appreciate the various political and religious struggles that its citizens must endure. Iris Robinson’s remarks on homosexuality were impolitic in the least or deliberately bombastic and while I am sure there are many in the 300 million people in the US that may hold the same sentiments the situation here is somewhat different. Many people believe that it is not about equal rights under the law but special rights granted by the federal government. It is not the place for the government to recognize one group as unique and therefore separate from society on the whole. All the laws that are needed for all people to be treated fairly are already on the books. The problem is that the laws are not applied equally and that is a local and social problem that the federal government would only make worse by intervening. If my history is correct then being from Northern Island you know what chaos ensues when a remote powerful government interferes with local problems.
I am sorry to hear that you are experiencing an oppressive atmosphere to free thought and expression.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Robinson's remarks where
December 16, 2008 - 08:10 ET by amiesRobinson's remarks where not just impolitic they where made in her elected capacity as an elected representative and chair of the mental health committee but that is a debate for another time.
On all parties being treated equal, I agree that equality must be applied to all equally which is why I am for gay marriage. It grants equal rights to all couples. Its not like they all want to get married in a church!
The problem with Christianity, especially in America, is the views that the majority find most displeasurable are being shouted the loudest by minority groups causing the majority of Christains to then feel discriminated against. That applys to all.
The media needs to start treating all anti-something statements the same, either ban them all OR allow them all. I am for allowing them all, with responsibilty given the fine line between freedom of speech and incitement to hatred speech. I think only then can positive intelluctial conversation occour allowing people to learn and understand.
amies, you said
December 16, 2008 - 08:32 ET by AgnosticIn this quote I find half of the problem even though something is left out, "The problem with Christianity, especially in America, is the views that the majority find most displeasurable are being shouted the loudest by minority groups causing the majority of Christains to then feel discriminated against." The part left out is the prevailing attitude of the media with its nationwide megaphone vs. individuals, a media that suppresses news and a media that squarely lands on the side against Christianity almost every time.
The other half is how governmental power is supposed to be distributed in the US. This is an issue which is supposed to be handled by the states not the Federal government. It is getting harder to tell where the power of the federal government ends and it must be impossible for someone outside the US to see that there is any limits on the Federal government. The erosion of local control of government and the growth of federal intervention in the life of our citizenry is linked to many of the problems the nation faces. Most noticeably the corruption, pork spending, bloated federal programs and an activist judicial system (protected by a self preservation network of internal promotion).
I understand the fundamentalist argument against homosexual marriage though I don’t necessarily agree with them. However, if the federal government were to say that homosexuals have a right to marriage it would be an acknowledgement that homosexuals are a unique group that should be allowed unique rights and that is wrong. If the individual states were to recognize the marriage of a homosexual union then there is no distinction between one American from another American and there is a process in place that has been tested with regularity over the past several years to do this legally and the homosexual community has failed to create a persuasive argument. Part of the reason is as you so aptly stated above that the population is hearing the opinion “shouted the loudest by minority groups causing the majority of Christians to then feel discriminated against". Many people are being repelled by the feeling of being attacked and voting defensively.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
See this is where we
December 16, 2008 - 08:52 ET by amiesSee this is where we disagree I don't see how it makes them a unique group, it just grants the same rights to all consenting adults in releationships.
See the difference between popular media in America as percieved her and popular media as percieved in the UK is that in the UK the popular media sides with Christianity which just causes teh same problems but in reverse.
legally
December 19, 2008 - 09:44 ET by AgnosticBy recognition by the government as being a separate group but part of the total population of the US they would legally be a unique group. At this point the courts and lawyers would be filing law suits until the court systems were buried in paper. For an example you could look at what happened legally when the courts recognized sexual harassment as a problem 'women' face in the workplace.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
RE: Secular point of view ..
December 16, 2008 - 09:40 ET by mustangsallyThe7Sticks,
I'm glad you are so open-minded about all of this; what with the playboy lifestyle and all. Since there is nothing inappropriate in enjoying the female form, please post nude photo shoots of your mothe, sisters, and (18+ daughters) for our recreation. About 20 or so of each ought to be good. Please be sure to use hi-res photography so the "female form" can be enjoyed globally and on an enduring basis.
Careful your mind isn't so "wide open" that your brains fall out ..
Fallacious argument. Woman
December 16, 2008 - 10:06 ET by amiesFallacious argument. Woman chose to pose for Playboy.
women choose to pose?
December 16, 2008 - 11:53 ET by mustangsallyWomen may make a lot of "choices" for financial gain; pornography, prostitution, etc.). The degree to which she is "free" (from coercion) to make these choices may vary. Even if a lifestyle of pornography and/or prostitution were freely chosen, does that absolve the consumer of an immoral and/or illegal act? Pornography objectifies the subject by making him/her a mere object of pleasure. That is why the thought of one's mother, sister, or daughter making this "choice" and being degraded in this way is reprehensible. Listen to your conscience; it is a divine spark within you ...
My conscience? It says
December 16, 2008 - 12:51 ET by amiesMy conscience? It says that if the woman in question is free to choose to pose for Playboy and there are men who choose to buy Playboy let them. Its only degrading because you say it is. I guarantee if you ask any woman who has chosen to pose for any type of art, the last word they will use to describe the experience is degrading.
In all honestly as long as the adults are consenting, I don't care what they are doing. My conscience is far more bothered by illegal and degrading acts perpertrated against woman worldwide in the name or religion/manhood/culture, as should yours.
consenting adults ...
December 16, 2008 - 17:02 ET by mustangsallySo, you are basically giving license to any activity whatsoever provided the adults are consenting. Presumably that includes prostitution, drug use, gay marriage, euthanasia, infanticide? Do you think there is no impact upon society from these activities? Does a child not have the right to be raised in a natural setting (with a mother and a father)? What about polygamy - are you OK with that too?
I suggested you listen to your conscience, not your lower appetites ...
infanticide? Where is
December 17, 2008 - 03:32 ET by amiesinfanticide? Where is infanticide between two consenting adults? You keep losing your arguments with ad hominem attacks. Keep to the point and you will do better.
The point actually was about woman's rights worldwide, but seen you ignored that I will address your arguments.
So, you are basically giving license to any activity whatsoever provided the adults are consenting
Yes, who has the right to dictate what adults do in their lives? You all bang on about how the liberal nanny state needs to stop dictating what can and can't do in their lives yet here you are telling people what they can and can't do.
There are far bigger problems that need to be dealt with than people's private lives.
Do you think there is no impact upon society from these activities?
Not the massive impact you imagine.
Does a child not have the right to be raised in a natural setting (with a mother and a father)?
Depends on the parents. I know plenty of people who were far better off without one of their parents in their lives. I also know gay couples who make brilliant parents in tragic circumstances. 2 male friends of mine, David and Tom, a gay couple who have been together 20 years, are raising 3 children (aged 5, 10 and 12). How did they get these children? David's sister died in a car crash, their father had left them years ago and doesn't care. Are you saying this is not a natural setting, living with their uncle and partner?
What about polygamy - are you OK with that too?
Only if gay couples can marry.
I suggested you listen to your conscience, not your lower appetites ...
My conscience? It still says there are bigger problems in the world
OK, now I've gotta chime in
December 17, 2008 - 12:40 ET by lotr"Yes, who has the right to dictate what adults do in their lives?"
Are you advocating anarchy? A society and its legitimate government has the right to establish laws. A person simply cannot do whatever he or she wants. And privacy has limits.
"Not the massive impact you imagine."
Au contraire. Love/intimacy/relationships are at the heart of the matter. How can one strive for "world peace" if he/she is tormented by their own internal conflicts? Some of "us dreamers" (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, et al.) have advocated that these fundamental issues of family (the base societal unit) are at the very root of macroscale societal problems (see below), which are merely symptoms.
"Are you saying this is not a natural setting, living with their uncle and partner?"
What is being said is that a child wants/needs/craves both adult male and female intimacy, and that such intimacy is a critical factor in the child's formation. Are you saying that there is no difference?
"My conscience? It still says there are bigger problems in the world"
And my conscience and tendency toward deductive reasoning say that these "bigger problems in the world" are the macroscale manifestations of microscale forces (viz., family stability and relationships, core moral values, etc.).
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
$0.02
December 19, 2008 - 09:41 ET by AgnosticThe traditional family values as a core of society is the cornerstone of the philosophy established and preached by Confucius. In his society homosexual activity was common but not spoken of openly and that has been the accepted state of homosexuality through the generations. In these times homosexuals are not willing to be ignored for the sake of a social conscience that denies their existence but benefits from their achievements.
While many may wish the homosexual population to stay in the closet or the back of the bus or whatever seems logical to the ‘average’ person it is getting more difficult to ‘keep them where they belong’ in society. If we are to be a free society we must allow for people to be free to make the choices in their pursuit of happiness that are legal without the repercussions of those who merely disagree. We also must expect free people to respect the free society and not impose such demonstrations upon the society that are not deemed socially acceptable.
It is no fairer to ask homosexuals to hide their life away from the rest of society simply because if makes people uncomfortable as it is for homosexuals to flaunt their differences in the face of society in demeaning and vulgar ways. However, notice that is usually done in areas of high liberal populations. Liberals who tend to see attention by their mere character.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
response
December 19, 2008 - 13:27 ET by lotrFirst off, homosexuals have never been consigned to the back of a bus. This form of discrimination is not possible, as there is nothing in their innate physical characteristics that could lead to such discrimination. This, methinks, is one of the beefs the African American community has with any such analogies.
"If we are to be a free society we must allow for people to be free to make the choices in their pursuit of happiness that are legal"
The key word here being "legal," which is the essence of the current debate.
"Homosexual marriage" has never been a lawfully recognized institution at any time or in any culture since the dawn of history. Futhermore, it would've been overwhelmingly opposed up until very, very recently (as in the past 10 or so years; indeed, it would've been unthinkable a mere 30 years ago), and even now remains opposed by a majority of the American populace. To put this in perspective, if we just consider 6000 years of recorded history and squeeze that into a 24 hour day, this change in new-liberal mindset (i.e., that "homosexual marriage" is even an issue on the table) would have occurred during the last 2.4 minutes of the day. What brought about this radical change?? It isn't like people have gotten smarter, more ethical, etc., in the past 10 years. What else has changed in the past 30 years that may have been played a causative role? Something to think about.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe
causative role?
December 21, 2008 - 07:58 ET by AgnosticFirst off, the back of the bus reference was to tie in the historical instances in society of ‘seen but not heard’ participants. This is in no way an attempt to tie racial discrimination with discrimination against homosexuality in any other than the obvious discriminatory act itself. If the vote in California proved anything it is that the black community is far more in conflict with the homosexual community than the US as a whole. But liberals for the most part are going to go with the proven rule book and the rhetoric of oppression and the accusations of narrow mindedness will continue.
Legal is the key word but there are methods in the US Constitution and the various state constitutions that have a procedure for changing laws. As long as the various political and activist groups operate within those procedures there should be no need for outcry from the public at large as essentially it will come down to voting. The problem comes in with usurped power of courts and the media’s incessant bugling of their cause de jour that drowns out the actual debate.
Finally, it is my opinion that your time line may be too short and incomplete. There are four things that IMO brought us to the point today that we are able to see the radical change you mention that in truth has grown rapidly over the past 60-70 years.
1- You probably need to go back several years past your original 30 year reference to things like the news coverage of the Korean War, media creation of Camelot, the coverage of JFK’s assassination, the stepping down of Nixon and the promotion of social ideas in the face of reported failure in Viet Nam. What followed was a media so characterized by political involvement and drunk on the power displayed by their manipulation of information that reporters and readers of the news saddled themselves with the added burden of saving society from itself.
2- When you add to this the use of college to escape military service, the popularity of liberal arts degrees and union like structure of universities there is a guarantee of a continued dominance on the University Campuses of liberal ideas.
3- The acceptance of many leaders and advocators of Social Ideas in the years following WWII and their rise to power and significance during the 60’s and 70’s.
4- The influence in Hollywood of communism and the seemingly intrinsic quality of artistic people being liberally minded creates a propaganda machine that has increasingly attempted to sway public opinion for the last 60 years
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
nice response
December 21, 2008 - 13:17 ET by lotr"the rhetoric of oppression and the accusations of narrow mindedness will continue."
Not sure what you mean by this statement, but aside from that, a very reasonable response demonstrating a decent understanding of societal context. Can't say that I disagree with anything stated, other than I believe there ought not to be "continued dominance on the University Campuses of liberal ideas," especially as it pertains to supplementing objective instruction and search for truth with political proselytizing.
And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. -- Edgar Allan Poe