The Jesus cartoons

posted at 12:25 pm on April 27, 2006 by Allahpundit

Another American university tackles free speech, and everyone involved embarrasses themselves — except the conservatives. A parable for our times.

World Net Daily broke the news yesterday that a far-left student newspaper at the University of Oregon — called “The Insurgent” appropriately enough — decided to publish 12 deliberately offensive cartoons of Jesus in their March issue. Why? Because the Oregon Commentator, a conservative student newspaper at U of O, recently published the 12 Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Mohammed. The Insurgent wanted Christians to know what it felt like to have their religion insulted.

Because, really, what would Christians know about something like that?

These days, standard operating procedure in any campus free speech fracas calls for (a) offended students to whine about the injury done to their dainty sensibilities, followed by (b) third-party defenses of the offensive material for all the wrong reasons, resulting in (c) equivocation and/or outright censorship by the university administration, and hopefully ending with (d) the threat of a lawsuit by FIRE for all the right reasons. You’ll be happy to know with respect to the Jesus cartoons that the first three stages are already complete.

(a) Offended students whining. U of O student Zachary White responded to the Insurgent’s publication of the cartoons by filing a formal request with the student government to de-fund the publication. Wrote White in his complaint, “I find it intolerable and contrary to the University’s mission of tolerance and non-discrimination to use public funds to allow for discrimination of a religious group on campus.” His request was denied. Here’s White’s op-ed in the campus’s student newspaper, the Oregon Daily Emerald, in which he declares himself “dumbfounded at the fact that a publicly funded publication can get away with this.”

William Donohue of the Catholic League got in on the act yesterday when he sent a letter of complaint to U of O President Dave Frohnmayer, Oregon’s three Catholic bishops, the governor, every member of the state legislature, and … pretty much everyone, basically. Said Donohue, “At the very least, [Frohnmayer] could have issued a statement of moral condemnation. Other college and university presidents who have been faced with similar problems have cancelled classes for a day so that a college-wide symposium on tolerance could ensue.”

Jeff Goldstein dealt with “tolerance” and what that term has come to mean a few weeks ago. (Note in particular his second update.) But before we dispatch with Donohue, let’s acknowledge that he’s 100% right in this bit from his letter about the free-speech bravehearts at U of O:

Why did the Insurgent choose Christians, especially Catholics, to make their point? Why didn’t they choose Jews? Why didn’t they insult African Americans? Why didn’t they drag gays through the mud? For that matter, why didn’t they bash Muslims?

A point often made, but a point worth making often. Anyway, Donohue knows full well what he’d have to do to get newspapers to stop bashing Christians, and why he should never, ever do it.

(b) Dopey third-party defenses. The Daily Emerald offered their take on the incident in an editorial on April 5th, coming down hard on the Insurgent in the process. The Jesus cartoons are nothing like the Mohammed cartoons, the Emerald argued — because the Mohammed cartoons are way more offensive. “Poking fun at the religious beliefs of the majority,” it concluded, “is inherently different from attacking an already oppressed minority.” And that’s not all:

[P]rinting home-grown cartoons depicting Jesus on a cross/pogo stick or Jesus on a cross/hangliding apparatus are not inflammatory in the same manner as the anti-Islam cartoons, and therefore fail to produce the intended empathy from Christians to Muslims.

The comics printed in Europe (and later reprinted by the Oregon Commentator) were offensive and riot-producing because they touched on relevant religious and social issues [i.e., Muslims responded violently because the cartoons implied they’re violent. — ed.], such as the notion that all men in turbans are terrorists and the very real problem of European discrimination and violence toward the Muslim community.

The cartoons created by The Insurgent were not only irrelevantly offensive (why should a Christian care that an amateur liberal cartoonist has drawn Jesus listening to an iPod?), they were printed in a nation where many citizens identify with some sect of Christianity and rarely experience the kind of widespread oppression felt by Muslims around the world. Trying to make an equal comparison between the Muslim anger toward European cartoons and potential Christian anger toward homoerotic Jesus cartoons printed in The Insurgent is a careless dismissal of why Islamic communities felt under attack because of the offensive comics.

Emphases mine. Here again are the Mohammed cartoons; find the one that says “all men in turbans are terrorists.” As for the rest of it (including/especially the notion that it’s Muslims who are being threatened by Europeans), it’s precisely the sort of victimization rhetoric often heard from jihadi apologists in general and Palestinian apologists in particular: while not explicitly condoning violence, it does demand that we give the oppressed an awful lot of leeway in how they choose to respond to perceived “humiliations.”

Check out the comments at the bottom of the Emerald’s editorial, too.

(c) Censorship by the administration. According to World Net Daily, Frohnmayer released a statement expressing his “concern” about the Insurgent and insisting that he’d use “all permissible means” to respond to publications like it. In this case, however, because the Insurgent isn’t published by the university and is funded entirely by student fees, the administration can’t exercise any … “editorial control.”

But what’s this?

More than 700 copies of a controversial recent edition of a student publication that criticizes and satirizes Christianity are sitting in a University facility instead of being mailed as usual. University officials said they held the issues of The Student Insurgent after realizing an administrative error had allowed past issues to be sent at a discounted rate, but members of publication’s staff claim the issues were censored….

University officials on Monday notified the student government, which oversees programs such as The Insurgent, that ASUO programs are not allowed to use the University’s nonprofit bulk-mail permit, previously used to send The Insurgent.

How long had the Insurgent been using the bulk-mail permit? According to the article, at least four years.

There’s nothing more about this on the Emerald website, so I’m not sure what the current status of the Insurgent is. The Oregon Commentator (the conservative student newspaper, remember) managed to scare up a copy, though — and has posted the entire issue, uncensored, on its own website. As far as I know, it’s the only place to view the images online. Here’s the cover, which is precisely as witty and insightful as you’d expect it to be:


Congrats to the Commentator for being the only consistent voice for free speech during this episode. And yes, that includes the Insurgent, which had a very different reaction to the virtues of free expression a few years ago when the Commentator was on the hot seat. The Commentator also found time on its blog to respond to the student who wanted to de-fund the Insurgent over its publication of the cartoons — and it got that right, too.

By the way — if you decide to delve inside the issue of the Insurgent itself, be sure to check out the editorial on page 2, in which the blogosphere’s own zombie makes a cameo, as well as the commentary on page 16 by “Jessica” and “Dan,” which has to be seen to be believed.

Update: Nothing about this yet on FIRE’s website, but they do report some good news: the “Portraits of Terror” art exhibit at Penn State that was initially banned by the university has now been reinstated.

Update: As I’d hoped he would, Goldstein weighs in. “[P]redictably, the grimy fingerprints of identity politics are once again smeared all over this story.”

Update: The Commentator has been (temporarily) silenced — by this post. Apparently, we sent them so many hits today that they burned through their monthly allotment of bandwidth. They’re working on resolving the situation. Apologies to the good folks at the OC for the snafu. They sent me a new link to the PDF of the Insurgent, which I’ve substituted above. I’ve also requested that they send me screenshots of the posts I originally linked to (and which are very much worth reading); if they do so, we’ll host them here.

Update: The Commentator is back up and running so I’ve re-enabled links. They’ve also added a link to the PDF version of their recent issue about the Mohammed cartoons. You’ll find it in the update here, below the image of the Insurgent cover.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I’m OFFENDED that Jesus’s skin was made a sissy pink. Everyone knows it was brown, Insurgant!(heavy sarcasm).

bucktowndusty on April 27, 2006 at 12:38 PM

After all everyone knows the Jews killed Jesus because he was a person of color and that people that insult Islam must be beheadeded…………

birdman on April 27, 2006 at 1:22 PM

Bless the youth. Jessica, Dan (or is it Don?), and the Emerald editorial are so much clearer in their statement of leftist principle than professional mainstream jihadi apologists tend to be. They simply point out that the West is more powerful than the Muslim world therefore all criticism, insults and sanction must be directed at the West only. If only the power principle were stated as clearly in the New York Times and comparable venues, where it tends to be disguised as the vaguer “sensitivity” principle.

Alex K on April 27, 2006 at 1:28 PM

What time is the Catholic rampage?

JammieWearingFool on April 27, 2006 at 1:38 PM

I’m Jewish and this is offensive

Muhhamad with a turban shaped like a bomb I understand is offensive, but 11 out of 12 of those are nothing.
Jesus with an erection is insanely offensive, moreso tehn the bombturban one.

Defector01 on April 27, 2006 at 1:46 PM

Very pretty. Thanks!

anonyMoses on April 27, 2006 at 1:47 PM

Ah the Catholic Church the number one enemy of libs, remember Pope John Paul in Poland out of a country thirty five million people twenty million came out to see him and the walls came toumbling down. That is John Pauls legacey…

birdman on April 27, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Its really offensive that they think that the Son of God’s love pump is that small. He’s THE SON OF GOD! Mohammed on the other hand, well you know what he had to do.
And I don’t think Jesus’d get sunburned like that either.
They’re just so blind.

Iblis on April 27, 2006 at 2:25 PM

The juveniles in Oregon certainly succeeded in offending me. I take offense at the vulgarity they displayed (as they intended), and I take offense at the use of tax dollars to do it. So they succeeded at part of their endeavor.

However, they failed utterly in their stated purpose.

Essentially, this was simply another juvenile attempt to claim moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims.

If Christians are offended by extreme depictions of Jesus Christ, than its OK for Muslims to be offended by depictions of Muhammed, right?

The argument fails on two counts. First, a moral equivalence argument fails if the things compared are not morally equivalent in the first place. To carry this to an extreme, if I am guilty of jay walking, does that make my offense morally equivalent to murder?

Since the pictures of Jesus Christ were far more extreme than the pictures of Muhammed, the moral equivalence argument would fail even if it succeeded in eliciting the same response from some Christians as the Muhammed pictures elicited from some (many) Muslims. But even with a significant mismatch in the level of provocation, the response was different!

Even pictures as extreme as these failed to elicit the same response as the much tamer pictures of Muhammed. No Christians are threatening to cut off the heads of the “artists” who drew the pictures of Jesus. The perpetrators are in no physical danger at all!

Which means, of course, that these juveniles in Oregon have succeeded in proving exactly the opposite of what they say they intended to prove. Even with a significant mismatch in the level of provocation, the Christian response was/is dramatically different than the Muslim response.

Since the juveniles involved may not be smart enough to follow the simple reasoning above, I’ll sum it up for them:

This juvenile little stunt DISPROVED moral equivalence.

EternalHope on April 27, 2006 at 2:43 PM

Whether one is Christian or not, these cartoons are still very offensive on so many levels. There is no humor in them. Many are simply obscene. At least the Mohammed cartoon regarding the shortage of virgins was funny. One would expect to find this kind of tripe in the dark corners of the internet, not in a student newspaper in the US. The anger, hatred and warped view of reality evident in the editorials is mind-boggling. Of course, I agree that they have every right to print whatever they choose. Lucky for them the chose to offend Christians and published their rag in the US.

IrishEi on April 27, 2006 at 2:56 PM

My gosh Allah, no wonder every one missed you so much. Totally awesome post and right on the money.

Rightwingsparkle on April 27, 2006 at 2:58 PM

Well said EternalHope.
Also I note the ‘artists’ from Oregon are not in hiding, fearing for their lives as crazed Koran endorsed Jihad thugs go about killing the townspeople and burning the schools flags.

As for the argument presented by “The Insurgent”(s) , it reminds me of the justification I hear from my neighbors…..the 5 year old twins going at it in the sand box.
Hey, there’s a new name for that fish wrapper….

shooter on April 27, 2006 at 2:58 PM

Thank you for posting this, though sacraligous, it must be shown so people will know exactly how evil and hyocritical people have become. God forbid that was Mohammed, but then we all know what happened there. It is time Christians and Jews denounce this instead of silently turning the other cheek. That is not showing love, it is allowing sick people to desecrate our beliefs and the Lord Jesus Christ.

doll on April 27, 2006 at 3:00 PM

This cartoon is a direct slap at Christians. We who are Christian believe in the mystery of the virgin birth, that He was conceived without sin and He lived without the stain of sin. The cartoonsit is evidently stating his belief that Christ Jesus died a sinner, or at least died with lust in His heart.

I find it offensive but you won’t find me running out to shoot a Muslim in the head.

geekrunner on April 27, 2006 at 3:01 PM


Unfortunately people have been denouncing this sort of thing to no avail: Bill Donohue of the Catholic League in particular, extensive coverage of the “War on Christmas,” plus a book of the same name by John Gibson. All are pooh-poohed by the MSM.

What goes around comes around. I just hope I’m around to see it. At any rate, the Christian bashers and Islamists will have to answer to the Big Guy in the end.

IrishEi on April 27, 2006 at 3:08 PM

I doubt very seriously that Christians will go on a worldwide rampage burning, killing, maiming, beheading, burning, screaming, burning, maiming, killing, threatening…unlike the poor oppressed Muslims who, because of the oppression, feel a desire to burn, kill, maim, behead, burn, maim, kill, and threaten those who do not follow their path to glory and virgins…

However, it does not surprise me in the least that the rabid left has done this, it was, sadly, only a matter of time.

hoosier_federalist on April 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM

“What goes around comes around….”

Well, yeah, it’s called “Hell.”

ScottG on April 27, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Good grief! Jesus was PACKING, according to this bunch of whack-jobs.

dknighton on April 27, 2006 at 3:36 PM

What happens to Jihad terrorists after they die – do they travel to Paradise to enjoy 72 virgins, or endure the fires of Hell?

Jihadists believe that virgins are the carrot in front of the cart; the bait on the hook; “the grabber”, as marketers would say, that clinches the sale of their version of Islam to young, macho Muslims. Christians, on the other hand, have fluffy white clouds and angels as their shtick.

Look closely, though, and the trained eye can see that Jihadists are simply killers with fluffy titles who possess a thirst for violence, pain, and blood on Earth. They need virgins in Paradise to inflict pain and draw more blood in the afterlife. If not the case, wouldn’t they choose experienced floozies to fulfill their wildest desires instead?

Jihadists fail to realize that with 72 virgins, they only get to have sex 72 times before their virgins are no longer virgins. Even if they spread out their conquests to once a week, that leaves eternity minus 1.5 years of regular, boring sex. During this time, the women only moan and scream if the Jihadists work it good.

And, since remote controls, televisions, couches, bass fishing, basketball, and bikinis are inventions of the infidels, thus barring them from Paradise, the boredom of the eternity they seek will eventually make them commit suicide twice.

bucktowndusty on April 27, 2006 at 3:47 PM

Riot anyone? Everyone know Jesus didn’t have a penis. He was above that sort of thing.

Sloggin on April 27, 2006 at 4:01 PM

OK, I took my medicine. As a Christian I was offended, but I shall manage to recover.

This article didn’t actually mirror that of the Jyllands-Posten.

== There were no cartoons making fun of the publication

== All cartoons depicted Jesus. The J-P ran some that didn’t even have ‘Big Mo’

== All depictions were offensive. Some of the J-P cartoons were neutral depictions

== There was no cartoon of a student named Jesus sticking his tongue out

I demand balance. I’ll burn Che shirts until they provide it.

fluffy on April 27, 2006 at 4:04 PM

Will the moooslims be rioting over this blasphemy?

Sloggin on April 27, 2006 at 4:04 PM

I’m so pissed, I’m going to go home, burn it to the ground, flip over my jeep, light it on fire, then demand that the government buy me new stuff.

Or perhaps I will just go home, drink a beer, study for exams, and balance my checkbook.

E5infantry on April 27, 2006 at 4:25 PM

A good peaceful way to protest the cartoons…I’m fine with it.
J-P had better quality work, but these are a worthy attempt.

Catholics normal don’t riot unless the subject is football (american or international football)
If they had insulted Brazilian soccer – there would be rioting.

Marvin on April 27, 2006 at 4:26 PM

We need to find a Mohammed with an erection … I am sure the playfield would be leveled then! :)

Nordish on April 27, 2006 at 4:38 PM

THAT WILL cause a riot
But at least it would explain the 72 virgins thing

Defector01 on April 27, 2006 at 4:50 PM

You can actually see similar creations on Zombie’s “Extreme Mohammed” page:

The difference here, though, is that all (or almost all) of these are internet-based, and no print publication would dare to publish such things! Ridiculing Jesus in the print media is less dangerous, and somewhat more acceptable.

Nordish on April 27, 2006 at 5:01 PM

As a Christian, I’m not offended in the least. I EXPECT unbelievers to ridicule my Lord. They did it while he was dying on the cross, why should it be any different now that he’s risen and ascended? They don’t believe He is Who He claims to be.

Their pathetic, juvenile – dare I say limp? – attempts at ridicule fall utterly flat. Childish scribblings cannot insult the Name Above All Names.

But one day, these scribblers will bend their knees and proclaim Jesus Christ to be the Lord of Lords.

I pray for their sake that day comes before His return in wrath and glory. For on that day, it will be too late to repent. “‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord. ‘I will repay.'”

Lake of fire > beheading, any day.

skydaddy on April 27, 2006 at 5:14 PM

Good LORD, have you READ that tripe? The content is pathetic leftist garbage of course, but what really disturbs me is the spelling and grammar. These are *college* students?

Laura on April 27, 2006 at 5:42 PM

To the Hot Air community,

I sent an e-mail to this student magazine explaining how I felt about it. Below is a transcript of it.


To whom it may concern:

1) You have the right to publish those Christian cartoons, regardless of how offensive they are.

2) You have the right to publish those Mohammad cartoons, regardless of how offensive they are.

3) You have the right to NOT publish the Mohammad cartoons.

4) Your reasoning for why you choose to publish the Christian cartoons seems somewhat questionable.

5) Your reasoning for why you choose to NOT publish the Mohammed cartoons seems to be gibberish…UNLESS…

6) You were afraid to publish the Mohammed cartoons. Which does seem to be understandable, as riots and physical attacks are scary things.

It is easy and safe to publish cartoons mocking Christians. It is dangerous and scary to publish cartoons mocking Muslims.

Everyone likes to imagine that they are brave: “If I was in Europe during WWII, I would have resisted. I would have stood up to the Nazis. I would have risked my life to harbor those innocent Jews. I would have been the one who was willing to hide Anne Frank.”

But the truth is that most of us aren’t brave. Most of us don’t have much courage. When the jackbooted thugs threaten us with REAL violence, most of us fold. And then the lying begins. We lie to ourselves. Because the truth is painful. And also shameful.

Jessica said that it is “really fun to offend people.” Yes, I suppose it can be, if they don’t attack you. If they do, well, the fun goes out of it. Then it becomes scary. Do you want to offend some Muslims?

Jessica also said that it is “fun to break the rules.” Yes, I suppose that is true, if you don’t think you will really be punished for it. Such a vicarious thrill it is. But to break a rule that will probably lead to serious threats? That is not fun at all. Do you want to break some Muslim rules?

Don, you said you published the cartoons as a “test.” Fair enough. Allow me to offer a prediction. You will probably receive lots of e-mails opposing your decision. Mixed in with this will be some cowardly and despicable anonymous threats. Your phone will receive the same. And that is about as far as it will go. No Molotov cocktails. No riots outside your office. U.S. embassies will not be burned overseas. The Vatican will not put out a ruling calling for your death. Nor will any Christian minister call for your death. Some will condemn you, but that is as far as it will go. And eventually, it will all fade away. And I thank God, the Constitution, and the American public for that. I want no harm to come to you.

Jess, in regards to the Christ cartoons, you said, “Do I dare? Oh yeah baby……” Congratulations. You have dared to publish the cartoons. Now I ask you the same question about the Mohammad cartoons. Do you dare to publish them? I am not asking if you would like to publish them, or if you think they should be published. Do you dare to publish them? Publicly? Martin Luther had the courage to sign his name to the 95 Theses he nailed to the church door. Do you have the same courage?

Damian said that he hopes that this issue of the Insurgent doesn’t lead to “censorship on campus.” Well, I hope it doesn’t either. Damian, I read your editorial. I don’t know if we would be friends, but you seem like a reasonable guy. I’d drink a beer with you.

In conclusion, congratulations. You all have joined a very long, long list of people who have decided to publish offensive things offensive to Christians. But this is not a very exclusive club, nor does it really require much courage to join it. Some small amount of moxie, yes. But not much more.

Perhaps this whole episode will help stimulate real debate though. I hope so. We shall see.

I suppose in the name of full disclosure of my beliefs I should let you know where I stand. I am a Christian. I found your cartoons offensive, as I am sure the Muslims found the cartoons of Mohammed offensive. Nonetheless, freedom of speech must prevail. Both sets of cartoons must be allowed to be published. Freedom of religion does not mean that religion is not allowed to be mocked, debated, or argued. Violence or the threat of violence to suppress either set of cartoons is unacceptable. I hope I have made myself clear.

You have offended me with your cartoons. However, I think the Lord’s Prayer gives me the guidance I need in how to react. I ask for forgiveness for my sins and mistakes, and I forgive you who have offended me. I have posted the Lord’s Prayer in it’s entirety below.

Our Father, who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses,

As we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,

But deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,

and the power,

and the glory,

for ever and ever.


Luke 11: 1-4


I am curious as to what their response will be. I did my best to tell the truth as I saw it, without being a threatening jerk, like those people who threatend Mrs. Malkin about the UCSC incident. Or like the people who threatened the UCSC students who published their phone numbers and e-mail accounts on the web. Debate and argument is good. Threats and violence is bad.

EFG on April 27, 2006 at 5:47 PM

It is crude, meaningless and unfunny… and I am not even Christian.

Freedom of speech applies equally to things we Americans may disagree with.

However The Insurgent leftists seem to think by doing something equally offensive (and legal) some how gives them moral superiority. I guess they share a common trait with the Islamifacists in that regard…

Wes on April 27, 2006 at 5:57 PM

I guess we’ve cracked the Da Vinci Code…

It’s ‘Who would Jesus Do?’

Though I guess what bothers me the most is that all Western society is being blamed for the rather tame Mohammed Cartoons in spite of the willingness of the MSMs to refuse publication.

Yet this obscenity is virtually self parody because mocking Jesus is just so… pedestrian and common…

Ultimately a tiny paper in Denmark proved it’s original point. That the ‘Politically Correct’ are self-censoring and their misdirected hate is just another symptom of their self loathing.

DANEgerus on April 27, 2006 at 6:08 PM

This proves that MY God is BIGGER than their god.

We Christians know that our faith will be mocked because the object of our faith was mocked. He even said we would be dispised and hated. Counter that with Mohammad’s rants about “kill the infidels where you find them” and you will see that there never was a more “apples and oranges” comparison.

Most Christians, like myself, take this stuff with a grain of salt, as part and parcel of what it is like to be a Christian in the world. No… we wont demand the heads of a bunch of misguided college students or demand some Christian version of dhimmitude. We know the Judge and the Judgement is not ours. And for the most part Christians embrace freedom of speech even at it’s ugliest because we remember that Christianity grew from the blood of it’s martyrs, who were simply speaking the truth in love.

Joe on April 27, 2006 at 6:09 PM

Please, since Oregon is so far West of where I live, will a fellow Anglican, someone located out there on the far West Coast, join the Christian protest and its accompanying riot in my stead?

I do hope the riot comes off as planned and that appropriate due force is used to vent mightily upon the sinners of the so-called Insurgent paper! It’s about time that we Christians, of whatever bent, show the Muslims how a proper religious riots should be held! Also, please, all those many participants, please use spell checker when preparing banners for the riot and please use plain colored scarves when hiding your face. Show the world the difference between us and those Muslim oppressors!

DougW on April 27, 2006 at 6:11 PM

“Lucky for them the chose to offend Christians and published their rag in the US. ”

Too easy, liberals!

They do it because they do *know* they will get away with it without consequences. It’s so easy to knock Christianity and Judaism (I think of the state of Israel, especially) here, and in the entire Western world.

What would take *real* courage is if these children (and they are surely that!) balanced it out and reprinted the Mohammedan cartoons.

I challenge the “Insurgent” to do just that. Somehow though, I doubt they’ll take me up on that.

Lady Heather on April 27, 2006 at 6:15 PM

You know, as Peter Marshall put it, it’s a humbling thing to be died for. I pray these kids learn that sooner rather than later.

JodyBlonde on April 27, 2006 at 6:46 PM

As one who lives near the University of Oregon, I am not surprised. I must say, as a Christian I am not angry either. If a person is not a Christian they cannot understand Christ. I refuse to get mad at their ignorance. My prayer is that they will one day know who Jesus really is.

Ron on April 27, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Ron, Amen to that.

“If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 NRSV)

whatnext on April 27, 2006 at 9:04 PM

As usual, mocking Christians is okay. All other religions are off limits, but Christians are fair game.

JB on April 27, 2006 at 9:21 PM

EFG, you stated it better than I ever could.

Thank you.

Lady Heather on April 27, 2006 at 9:47 PM

Freedom of speech does not contain any guarantee of an audience. If they really desire to publish this trash, then let them find funding from private sources in stead of using confiscated money from the general populace.

As a born again believer I am saddened to see my Savior mocked in this fashion; however, Jesus died for each and every person connected with The Insurgent. The amazing thing about God’s grace is that it is offered to everyone, even those who mocked Him, spat upon Him, beat Him, nailed Him to the cross, and published these images of Him.

Mad? No. Lost people act like lost people. But I wonder what God would do in thier life if a group of us decided to pray for all who were involved? It would be great to hear one day that all had been born again!

For God so loved the world…all those at The Insurgent…that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever…including all those at The Insurgent…believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. John 3:16,17)

That is the Truth!

Acts20:24 on April 27, 2006 at 11:51 PM

EFG, you hit it spot-on. It certainly doesn’t take much courage to publish anything offensive to Christians these days. I have to admit, I’m not easily shocked, even when people mock my Lord, but those cartoons shocked and upset me. I didn’t dare point out this story to my wife, who takes such things much worse than I do. It is interesting that these kids who claim to enjoy breaking rules and offending people didn’t have the guts to print the Mo’ cartoons. Kudos to the Commentator for printing one and putting the other online.

However, I think that cartoons like these Jesus cartoons, done in the name of free speech, really demean the value of our right to free expression and a free press. Such publications have no purpose beyond their intent to inflame and insult. That is not what our right is about, and that is where the difference in the Mohammed cartoons comes in. They make a statement about one of the evils of our world, and dare to contradict so-called ‘conventional wisdom.’ There are places in the world (China for one) where you can still be jailed for daring to contradict the establishment. Our right to free speech and press is a wonderful thing, as it empowers us to criticize our government and the powers-that-be without fear of reprisal. While the kids at the Insurgent certainly have the right to publish whatever garbage they want, they cheapen that right when they use it for the wrong reasons.

Jezla on April 28, 2006 at 12:57 AM

The reaction from the christians here prooves who has the moral superiorty now. They were hoping to goad us into violence- yet all they got was pity.

Oh and its nice to note for the Libs who keep calling Booosh a fachist- The student newspaper still exists and the students have not been arrested- thus prooving them wrong, yet again.

Solid_Snake on April 28, 2006 at 1:34 AM

Hello Lady Heather and Jezla.

Thank you both very much for your kind words.


EFG on April 28, 2006 at 2:16 AM

Very well put EFG.

You seem like a very nice and eloquent individual.

Please don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply.
We wouldn’t want to lose you.

Billy the Kid on April 28, 2006 at 5:34 AM

The Pope has just called for a “crusade” against the University of Oregon.

gary on April 28, 2006 at 7:48 AM

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice [In Greek: hilasmos, earlier translated as “propitiation,” meaning “turning away the wrath of God.”] for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2:1-2 (NRSV)

Aunt B on April 28, 2006 at 9:20 AM

I see no need to be offended. Is it vulger?., yes. Inaapropriate?, yes. But look at the level of intellect of those publishing this stuff. Do not be offended by those who are at such a low position on the evolutionary scale. You should only be offended by those with the capacity to understand an interpret abstract ideas and engage in critical thought. These folks obviously are incapable of a thought beyond that of a worker ant, doing only what they are told until their life ends.

dallas94 on April 28, 2006 at 10:45 AM

So they make fun of the savior. I would be less concerned of offending devout Christians like myself and more concerned about the eternal consequences. I hate this stuff but there is much uglieness in the world. I guess I am just too lazy to go out and light a car on fire because of it!


Rightzilla on April 28, 2006 at 11:24 AM

What some pre-pubescent pipsqueak liberal college student does to try to gain fame really doesn’t bother me. Even if it defiles the likeness of my Saviour. What does bother me is the fact that a tiny fraction of my tax dollars goes to fund this nonsense. I say hold a plebescite on federal grants given to institutions of higher learning. I can assure you that the leftist lean… or should I say lay… will evaporate as quickly as the funds given to said institutions.

reflexx on April 28, 2006 at 9:26 PM

Oh great, now they have offended Christians the world over. Guess that means we all have to go out and riot and demand the culprits be turned over for torture and death…Oh, wait, “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”. Pretty sure that the God who created the Universe can stand up for Himself.

Someone noted just the other day that we live in a culture where rather than being taught, and expected, to appreciate and honor authority, kids are taught by liberal minds to challenge and rebel against it, so why should this surprise anyone?

NRA4Freedom on April 29, 2006 at 1:08 AM

Jesus said this would happen. In fact from the days of Noah, throughout the bible to the present, man turning from God is part of human history. Any Christian with an understanding of the Bible knows this, and that is why we don’t bother getting all heated up over it. How could we stop what God himself said would happen? We can’t. So be it. Man who does not know God will not understand this concept therefore the “natural” man will keep mocking and denying Jesus. Us spiritual men and women will just keep praising the Lord! Amen!

gator70 on April 29, 2006 at 1:21 AM

well said, gator. Now lets go burn down some embassies.

gary on April 29, 2006 at 8:42 AM


Satan, the first liberal, taught Eve how to rebel against authority…and we’ve needed to overcome it ever since! I’m just glad God did not give up on all of us, and loved us enough in spite of our rebellion to send His Son to give His life for us.

It was Elijah that had the joy of seeing God speak for Himself when God sent the fire from the sky that consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, the dust, and the water in the trench. God then allowed him to slaughter the liberal prophets of Baal, who could not get their god to answer them after crying out to him all day. You are correct, God does not need any man to speak for Him.

Acts20:24 on April 29, 2006 at 11:52 AM

The students who did this are only showing their ignorance and arrogance. In other words, they are demonstrating their rebellion against God.

At my Talkwisdom blogspot, I just did a post called Natural Man is Blinded to Spiritual Things.

1 Corinthians 2:14 – But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

In their prideful hearts and minds, Jesus Christ dying on the cross for man’s sins is a ridiculous notion. So, people like those at The Insurgent paper mock and blaspheme the Lord Jesus Christ.

The following paragraph could very well describe these students:

B. What does Paul have to say about the natural man?
1 “He receives not the things of the Spirit of God. They are foolishness unto him.”
a. You try to talk to him about spiritual things and you may as well be talking to a Barbie Doll.
b. There is absolutely no comprehension.

These students have absolutely no appreciation nor comprehension for what Christ accomplished at the cross for them (as well as every other sinner [all of us].

Pastor Chuck Smith describes them well:

a. They are spiritually discerned.
b. So he lacks the faculties by which they are known and understood, (i.e. the spiritual nature).
c. You might say with equal logic, the blind man cannot appreciate the beauty of a sunset.
d. The deaf man cannot know the glories of the symphony.
e. They lack the faculties by which these things are known.

They are blind men/women; deaf men/women. What they really need are our prayers for redemption of their souls…

Jesus asks all of us one question, “Who do you say that I am?”

I pray that these lost “Barbie Doll” souls of The Insurgent paper eventually choose a better answer than the one they put forth in their disgusting and degrading cartoon. Where they ultimately will spend eternity is at stake! And, eternity is a long time.

Christinewjc on April 29, 2006 at 8:27 PM

From the “greatest generation” to the most inane,in only 60 years–Americans remain foolish children well into chronological adulthood.
God help us.

lizzee on April 30, 2006 at 9:47 AM