Gays Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Yay! Another person who gets the bigger picture!bresamil said:
I am not a sex toy.
Novus Collectus
New Member
Just out of curiousity, do you think newspapers in America should not print the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a hat because it is showing responsibility not to too?vraiblonde said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
Thor
New Member
Since when did religion become off limits to the first amendment? There seem to be this set of socially accepted rules which state we do not talk about someone else’s faith no matter how absurd we believe it to be. Why? Well because that is the way it has been and that’s the way it is.
Welp, no more boys and girls. If that poster offends you so be it, religion is not immune to free speech. You have the right to be upset; although I find that to be a bit silly, and the rest of us have the right not to give a damn about your silly belief system.
Sorry new rules for a new time. No more kid gloves when dealing with religion.
I give it 30 second for the first red karma, and I bet I’ll get at least one physical threat off this post. Good forgiving religious folks LOL
Welp, no more boys and girls. If that poster offends you so be it, religion is not immune to free speech. You have the right to be upset; although I find that to be a bit silly, and the rest of us have the right not to give a damn about your silly belief system.
Sorry new rules for a new time. No more kid gloves when dealing with religion.
I give it 30 second for the first red karma, and I bet I’ll get at least one physical threat off this post. Good forgiving religious folks LOL
Last edited:
smoothmarine187
New Member
I remember when my great grandpa Cornelius Oswald the III from Uruguay marched in San Francisco with nothing on but his comoflage g-string, some black biker boots, and a flower in his hair, because thats what you have to do if your going to San Francisco.
Um, considering that Muslims are indeed bombing and killing people in the name of Mohammad and Allah, I think it's merely calling a spade a spade.Novus Collectus said:
If some "artist" depicted Mohammad having gay sex with his lover or surrounded by sex toys, I would think that was disrespectful and uncalled for.
Vince
......
I'mno Mensa said:
I don't dislike people because they are gay, but these are real azzholes. Yeah. I don't care for them, their choice, their so called art or anything they think or say. I don't have to tell them go to hell because they've already taken the steps toward that area.
Last edited:
Novus Collectus
New Member
Child porn is when children that could not consent to the sex, nor the pictures, are taken and they are victims as a result and the photos themselves are a continuation of that crime. That is why child porn is illegal.Toxick said:
Drawings of adults having sex with children, computer simulations of adults having sex with childeren and literature describing it in detail are not illegal according to the Supreme Court under the First Amendment.
THe problem with declaring something obscene is that it is all subjective. I am sure there are non-Chrisitan religious groups that think depicting Jesus' image is obscene, so by that train of thought, should Christian churches in their communities be banned from displaying images of Christ because the majority there consider's it obscene?
PJumper
New Member
I believe in the appreciation of art, that is tasteful and created for the sake of art. When I said despicable, I'm referring to the quoted statement below, not that I was not offended by the group of gays who blasphemed Jesus with that painting.Geek said:
"The most unimaginable and vile acts of debauchery are commonplace during the fair. Senator Larry Craig was arrested and driven out of the Senate for allegedly soliciting public 'gay' sex, yet during this event the city of San Francisco suspends the law and allows 'gay' men and women to parade the streets fully nude, many having sex — even group orgies — in broad daylight, while taxpayer funded police officers look on and do absolutely nothing."
Novus Collectus
New Member
You used the word "responsibility" and that is specifically what i am asking you about.vraiblonde said:
WHat do you mean by the word "responsibility"? Is it that some people may be offended and therefore restraint should be used like some said should be done with the Muhammed cartoons? After all it is just a fraction of a percent of Muslims doing the bombings and the vast majority of Muslims in this country condone such acts, so why is it not "iresponsible" use of the First to offend millions of good Muslim Americans and "iresponsible" just when it offends some Christians with the Last Supper pic?
Sounds like a double standard to me and that brings us back to not alollowing just one group decide what is proper free speech. It leads to some to cherry pick what they want to be allowed.
Novus Collectus
New Member
ألاسمتَدْنِيسMikeinsmd said:
