"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:37:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:41:18 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Go do a search at www.npr.org. That's usually the first radio station I
tune to in the car. Next would be our local right-wing Clear Channel
disaster, WHAM.

The original cartoons were published Sept.30 in Jyllands-Posten. I'm
not
sure, but I don't believe it's a "Christian" newspaper. The following
link has the paper's rationale for the cartoons.

http://www.jp.dk/udland/tema:fid=11328/

The cartoons:

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/...posten-racism/

Interesting debate, freedom of speech vs. religious sensibilities. To
place it closer to home, to those in the freedom of speech camp, did you
also support Serrano's freedom to display his **** Christ?

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg...mages/502.html

Hadn't seen it. But, there might be a difference. Muslims believe it's a
bad
thing to portray their god in any way at all. Christians don't have such
issues with the mere existence of images of JC. The *nature* of an image
of
JC is another issue entirely.

but equaly offensive wouldn't you say?

Might depend on where it was published. How "in your face" was it? If Robert
Mapplethorpe's work had been in the editorial section of a newspaper, I
would've been outraged (as a parent). But, his work was interesting, and he
had every right to show it in venues where people knew what they were
getting into beforehand.

Frankly, I didn't find the **** Christ image such a big deal. Without the
title, it looked like just another heavily affected image.