Poster of naked Virgin Mary sparks unholy row

[notoepik]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nzealand...K3aWIsNGgeO7gF

WELLINGTON (AFP) – A church billboard showing an apparently naked Virgin Mary and Joseph in bed together has sparked the ire of conservative Christians in New Zealand.
On the poster a sad-looking Joseph lies next to Mary, whose face is turned heavenwards under the words: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."

Apparently conservative Christians find this poster offensive. duh and why wouldn't they? I personally find it quite amusing, being non religious. But the fact that it was put up there by a church meant to challenge literal interpretations of the Bible is the interesting story here IMO.

[Hevishot]

Cant people just have a good laugh? Of course not that would be too easy. People always have to cause an issue

[Sliver]

lol that's great! I always think poor Joseph in that story.

[drewboy12]

Thats not the Virgin Mary... Thats Cher in that picture.

[photon]

It wasn't up for very long until someone defaced it:



Of course some people find it offensive, for some reason some people think that what they think and believe should be immune to being questioned, scrutinized, criticized and ridiculed. Being able to express an opinion is ok as long as it's one you agree with eh mr-billboard-defacer.

[CrusaderPi]

So now we gotta burn down the New Zealand embassy.

[CaptainCrunch]

I can really understand why hard core Christians would be absolutely enraged. The Virgin Mary is hugely sacred to them, and the depiction of her like this would be hugely upsetting.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can really understand why hard core Christians would be absolutely enraged. The Virgin Mary is hugely sacred to them, and the depiction of her like this would be hugely upsetting.

Like the Danish Cartoons?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Like the Danish Cartoons?

Yup

as much as we begrudge people with religious feelings, in a modern society that embraces all you do have to respect their beliefs.

Even if you disagree with them.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yup

as much as we begrudge people with religious feelings, in a modern society that embraces all you do have to respect their beliefs.

Even if you disagree with them.

In a modern society we can question their beliefs respectfully, but we certainly don't have to respect their beliefs.

[Thor]

I saw her in my toast, then I ate it.

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

So now we gotta burn down the New Zealand embassy.

Found it!

[HotHotHeat]

Looks like she's not too pleased with Joe's performance. Tell her to call Tiger.

[Winsor_Pilates]

This should be a viagra ad

[kermitology]

I guess based on the explanation this is a perspective piece. A different perspective doesn't mean that it's super disrespectful.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

In a modern society we can question their beliefs respectfully, but we certainly don't have to respect their beliefs.

Yeah, guess I should have framed it differently.

The Danish Cartoon thing to me was trouble from the start, thats one of the key tenants in Islam is no representations.

Just like the Virgin Mary is venerated in catholic based religions.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course some people find it offensive, for some reason some people think that what they think and believe should be immune to being questioned, scrutinized, criticized and ridiculed. Being able to express an opinion is ok as long as it's one you agree with eh mr-billboard-defacer.

Your quote was fine till you said ridiculed. Anyone who uses ridicule when dealing with what people believe has lost my respect.

What, people are allowed to ridicule, but aren't allowed to be outraged? Being able to mock an opinion is ok, as long as those who disagree with you shut up?
If someone is going to mock someone else, they should be darn well ready to face the consequences of that mockery - which would be outrage.

Resorting to mockery to deal with arguments (or worse yet, to start them) leads to polarization and is one of the biggest problems with western society nowadays. Mockery shuts down proper discussion and argument, and in no way enhances it.

[Sample00]

man, where's Cheese when ya need him!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Your quote was fine till you said ridiculed. Anyone who uses ridicule when dealing with what people believe has lost my respect.

What, people are allowed to ridicule, but aren't allowed to be outraged? Being able to mock an opinion is ok, as long as those who disagree with you shut up?
If someone is going to mock someone else, they should be darn well ready to face the consequences of that mockery - which would be outrage.

Resorting to mockery to deal with arguments (or worse yet, to start them) leads to polarization and is one of the biggest problems with western society nowadays. Mockery shuts down proper discussion and argument, and in no way enhances it.

Of course people are allowed to be outraged, no one is arguing that. But their outrage has to be contained within the law. Defacing their sign is vandalism. It doesn't matter how outraged they are, they cannot break the law because they are offended. Perhaps the person who paid for the sign is offended it was defaced, maybe they are even outraged that their money and message have gone to waste. I don't think you would agree that they would be justified in throwing a bucket of paint all over a Catholic churches sign would you? Of course not. Why doesn't the person that threw paint on the sign, raise money for their own sign that counters the message? Throwing paint on the sign is the intellectual equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la-la-la.

I agree that needless mocking/ridicule does nothing to strengthen a debate for the most part, I however wouldn't rule it out completely. I don't believe that was the point Photon was making though.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Of course people are allowed to be outraged, no one is arguing that. But their outrage has to be contained within the law. Defacing their sign is vandalism. It doesn't matter how outraged they are, they cannot break the law because they are offended. Perhaps the person who paid for the sign is offended it was defaced, maybe they are even outraged that their money and message have gone to waste. I don't think you would agree that they would be justified in throwing a bucket of paint all over a Catholic churches sign would you? Of course not. Why doesn't the person that threw paint on the sign, raise money for their own sign that counters the message? Throwing paint on the sign is the intellectual equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la-la-la.

I agree that needless mocking/ridicule does nothing to strengthen a debate for the most part, I however wouldn't rule it out completely. I don't believe that was the point Photon was making though.

I was speaking to the point that it was OK to ridicule, not that it was OK to vandalize, nor was I really speaking to the specifics of the story. I understand Photon to be a primarily straight thinking person, which is why his comment about ridicule made me decide to speak out. When even the most level-headed person thinks it's ok to tease or mock ideas, it makes dealing with idiots who have no other recourse even worse, as they then feel they are on the side of angels (pun not intended) because even the more intellectual of people thinks it is a valid way to argue.

The way the internet ends arguments with mockery just is not a healthy way to conduct an argument.