The frog or the ban?
Really that the pope thought it was blasphemous. Made me laugh.
Religion is autocratic by definition; tyrannical, despotic and domineering. Censorship is one of the most pervasive and insidious forms of religious oppression.
The list of things censored by various religions are immense: food, clothing, speech, hair, work, art, sex and relationships. This list is not exhaustive to say the least.
Offense is subjective. What offends me does not offend you. And vice versa. We all know people whose very existence is offensive.
By using a subjective definition of offense; religions are allowed to censor without limit; and censorship is by definition oppression.
A free society must have freedom of thought, movement, speech and association. If we accept and allow theists to draw the boundary as to what is acceptable then we allow theists to take away our freedoms.
We may never get those freedoms back in our life times.
I suggest that each and every time a theist claims to be offended we do not let that claim stand.
Green with jumping envy for the artist who durst traverse in a microburst.
The more preposterous and looney a world view is, the more doubt and insecurity a believer has in them. It's no coincidence that those of the Abrahamic religions repeat every day their God exists. If they didn't they might not be able to keep their lingering doubts locked up in the closet. Repeating their fairy tales helps keep it locked tight.
If they weren't terribly insecure then a joke or cartoon or subversive art would be something to ignore or brush off. A frog on a cross or the Life of Brian is enough to crack their locked closet of doubts. The fact that a single work of art could so easily infuriate even the most dedicated believers and leaders tells everything. They have easily shakable faith and they cannot project confidence because they don't have it.
Their religions are fragile stuctures built of napkins and an insignificant work of art shakes its foundations. 200 years ago you'd be burnt at the stake. Now their leader cries foul and most people go "whatever". After all an all powerful being should be able to stick up for himself...no? Clearly not, so the best thing to to is cry no fair and shut people up.
Humanists believe in their principles as fervently as any believer in a sky-God. When we read people blogging or tweeting racist, sexist, homophobic garbage or creationists laughing and trashing the theory of evolution (all terrible assaults on humanist principles) we are saddened, but I don't want to shut anyone up. A reasoned response and further advocacy is all that humanist principles would allow. We can even laugh when South Park episodes ridicules every single human right, empirical knowledge and race/class/gender/religion/sexuality there is. The Pope cannot as his ideology is based on an enormous heap of absurdities held together with dogma and certitud. The humanist one is based on a minimalist set of simple principles arrived at through reason but are entirely subjective and are hardly "certain". Humanists react with arguments, theists react with ideological tears. It's difficult to respect an ideology that has people weeping over a frog on a cross.
That Frog is great I want one for my yard. :)
I thinks it's wonderful the Poope is loosing his shit over it. Haha
That frog thing is just about the ugliest piece of art(?) I think I have ever seen, but who am I to trash something someone considered art?. While I knew way back in my consciousness it had something to do with Christ and while I think it stinks (as art) I'm sure someone sees it as worthy of exhibiting in public. Frankly I wouldn't want (that ugly piece of shit) it in my yard much less inside my house. On the other hand labeling it blasphemous is unreal. I have to think the pope only decreed it blasphemy to let the believers know he is one of them.
I try to blaspheme at least one god every day. However this leaves me feeling rather dizzy due to my profession although if His Cuddliness finds it offensive I will have to grin and bear it :-)
If Jesus had choked to death on a bagel, and churches now had bagels on top instead of crosses, showing a frog choked by a bagel would be blasphemous?
Frankly, a bagel is more holy than a cross. It HAS one at least...and, it is perhaps more respective of Jesus being a Jew at the time of his death as well.
Being killed by the Romans, to allow him to forgive us our sins, vs, choked on a bagel, to allow him to forgive us our sins, makes less sense, when you think about it.
The council at Nicaea really needed to have thought this through better when you get right down to it.
They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee....and a trinity humped camel is a religion designed by a committee.
I have always thought, if Jesus had his head chopped off with an axe, would Catholics be wearing axes around their necks?
Indeed. If Jesus barbecued steak in his garage (it was winter you see) and had forgotten to replace the battery in his carbon-monoxide detector and forgot to put the BBQ and passed away calmly in his sleep ... then the Pope would cry foul when someone made a work of art of a frog forgetting to put batteries in its carbon-monoxide detector. I suppose winter would become the sacred season so no jokes about that, and also barbecues would become taboo in respect of the chosen one and garages would be considered sacred spaces that no one should be allowed to desecrate or make fun of or laugh at!
I thought the Pope had better things to do in his jewel encrusted palace!