Milk-carton alert: Millions of rampaging Christians missing after Playboy “Maria” outrage
posted at 4:00 pm on December 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Catholics and Christians in Mexico have expressed outrage over Playboy’s latest cover. The shot feature a model wearing a white head covering and nothing more in front of a stained-glass window, an obvious attempt to evoke the Madonna (the original, not the singer) at the time Mexican Catholics celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Fox News was all over this story, to no one’s surprise:
I suppose I should be outraged as well, but honestly, Playboy and the rest of the porn industry stopped surprising me years ago. Their hostility towards religion has been obvious for a long time, and the new Madonna imagery is just the latest attempted insult towards people of faith. It wouldn’t even be worth of comment, except for two points that I have yet to note being made in what little debate this cover has inspired.
First, conservatives will have a tough time criticizing Playboy for using religious iconography for its own social/political commentary after the defense made of the Mohammad cartoons. While the point in the latter had more intellectual heft than a naked model showcasing her wares, the cartoonists and their supporters (myself included) had little problem with exploiting religious imagery to score political points. Freedom of speech applies in both cases, at least in the cover, which is very suggestive but shows nothing more than anyone would see on a California beach, although the tagline, “Te adoramos, Maria” is at least somewhat sacriligeous in this context as well.
That leads to the second point. Our Western traditions of free speech and open debate have allowed offended Christians to protest the publication without massive violence and threats of death. The offense in this case goes far beyond what most of the Mohammad cartoons depicted, and yet millions of Christians have not gathered in anger to threaten death and the violent imposition of a Christian theocracy. The Vatican has not issued a fatwa on Hugh Hefner’s head, and I’d be surprised if they bother to react at all.
Update: Bottom line is that it doesn’t take much courage for Playboy to insult Christians. We’ll know they have testicular fortitude when they take Melissa Clouthier’s advice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »
“…where the worm dyeth not.”
Akzed on December 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Freedom of speech means that people who are offended are allowed to declare that they are offended in any forum and using any means they want. Provided no violence against people or property is committed.
OK, to be anal, I obviously mean violence against other people’s property. If I want to burn a copy of this magazine, I have to buy it first, I can’t burn your copy.
(Hefner would probably love it if a few million Christians bought copies of his magazine, in order to burn them.)
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Surpise? Not really, typical…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM
The West is doomed.
MedSchoolCatholic on December 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
and, Freedom to allow stupidity is a key step to protect the freedom to practice intelligent and reasoned debate.
rob verdi on December 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Lets say it’s a Muslim Woman revealing herself from under her hibjab and see where it takes us.
mindhacker on December 15, 2008 at 4:08 PM
meh!
BoomJunkie on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
The Al Christo has received its fatwah and is preparing to take action on the infidel Hefner and his devil worshipping allies.
DL13 on December 15, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Ed, you must oppose pornography to the extent you oppose abortion. It leads to damnable (grave) sin. Failure to call for its abolishment is tantamount to “cooperation with evil.”
mankai on December 15, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I just burned my PLayboy in a march of protest. After “reading it for the articles”, of course.
Nethicus on December 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Porn peddlers market stroke material to loser closet cases, this is news?
NoDonkey on December 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM
We’re not burning, rioting, and murdering as a result of these attacks on our faith. we’re simply pointing them out and criticizing them.
Just as Muslims had a right to be offended by the Mohammed cartoons, Catholics have a right to be offended by this cover.
And we have a right to express ourselves.
edgehead on December 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Everything that is a sin must also be against the law?
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
If the Muslims had limited their expressions of outrage to angry letters to the editor, calls to boycott any magazine that printed the cartoons, boycotts of the artist, etc. they probably would have had the support of many Christians.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I don’t want to mix things up too much, but didn’t McCain tell us that Mexican illegals were God’s children?? Maybe the Playboy Mexico people were only picking up on the theme.
And Ed, I didn’t realize you followed the porn industry so closely that you could say they stopped surprising you years ago.
BigD on December 15, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I like Ally & the good father, but GeezLouize, why be concerned with the Heifer Co.?
Randy
williars on December 15, 2008 at 4:20 PM
How about Alison Camerota in a white head scarf and nothing else? Lovely creature.
Jaibones on December 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Playboy has such Class. (sarc off)
Little Nell on December 15, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Yeah, I agree. This doesn’t surprise me. You just gotta learn to live with this kind of crap.
Achilles on December 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I predict all of 35 comments on this thread.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM
CyberCipher’s collie,
Sometimes it seems that it is easier to offend an atheist than it is to offend a Christian.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
My wife sez that’s one good looking priest!
Blake on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Who cares. Somebody that lied about their chastity, or at least someone whose chastity was lied about, shouldn’t be held in such high regard. People should be offended that they are expected to believe such nonsense. Immaculate conception? Hope your girlfriend/wife tries that line on you.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
As for Playboy, whatever. They are beneath contempt.
I have been laughing at the limp Hef for decades, as they traipse him around in his pajamas between feeding tube sessions, with silicone saturated, dyed and puttied bimbos holding him up by the arms, pretending to be his “girlfriends”.
Hef doesn’t even remember his last woody, much less get one.
Jaibones on December 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM
CyberCipher’s collie,
Sometimes it seems that it is easier to offend an atheist than it is to offend a Christian.
The voice inside my head says:
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM
How about not buying the magazine………?
………….. look what’s happening to leftist propaganda rags, formerly known as newspapers, all over the country.
Talk about a fire sale…….. let the market explain it to Hugh Hefner.
Seven Percent Solution on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Collie,
see what I said about the atheists?
—
Why are you so convinced that immaculate conception is impossible? If God can create the entire universe, surely he is capable of creating a baby.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I would think that the difference in the outrage is that NO ONE thinks this chick is Mary. Although I am certainly annoyed the Christians are such an easy targets, there is no way I would give one thought to this woman wearing a tablecloth is the Mother of Christ.
Cindy Munford on December 15, 2008 at 4:27 PM
zzzz
Good Lt on December 15, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Eh. On the front page, where she’s fairly clothed, I really don’t see the problem with saying, “We adore you, Maria.”
That said, free speech is a two way street. Playboy is allowed to insult Christians, and Christians are allowed to complain about it.
The problem with the Danish cartoons is that Muslims were doing more than complaining.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Father Morris = HOT! *Off to do some penance
Apologetic California on December 15, 2008 at 4:28 PM
If more christians looked like this woman I might overlook the plagiarism, fear-mongering and overall hypocrisy and nonsense of the religion. Heck, I might even show up at a few Sunday (let’s all compare our new clothes) services.
dk on December 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Why posit that you are talking about a non-fictional character?
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM
That’s one way of looking at the story, so to speak.
BigD on December 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I’m one of those crazy far right evangelicals, and I don’t have a problem with it. God will deal appropriately with the godless cretins.
kirkill on December 15, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Yes, when are we going to see a cover featuring a dark-haired, dark-eyed, Arab looking woman in a burka provocatively exposing her breasts in front of a mosque? We all know the answer: we’ll never see it, because it might offend Muslims.
Even the pornographers in this country have one standard for Muslims, and a different one for everybody else.
AZCoyote on December 15, 2008 at 4:30 PM
So, it’s no big deal to believe that God exists, that he created the world, went to Earth as a man, died and came back, but to believe God impregnated a woman without having sex with her, that’s where you draw the line?
That’s a logical fail.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:31 PM
I don’t like it, but we all know Playboy is soft porn and they don’t pretend otherwise. I was more offended by the individual who crafted the dung Madonna a few years ago, and by those so-called “experts” who insisted it was art.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Actually, I think he drew the line here:
Good Lt on December 15, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Huh? There are plenty of Christian women that conform to your fantasy ideals of feminine form. Too bad you’ll never really know the meaning of one flesh, since you obviously don’t view women as the precious gifts from God that they are.
kirkill on December 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Well, that explains things. The one Playboy I ever saw left me thinking “That’s it? I have text books more explicit than this…”
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM
While theologian is not among my impressive list of titles, I believe that as a point of doctrine, “immaculate conception” refers to the conception of Mary, who was born without the stain of original sin. It doesn’t refer to the conception of Jesus.
Cicero43 on December 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Obviously there’s more to this story than what meets the eye. Therefore I shall have to do more research.
rbj on December 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM
May I suggest we consider the COUNTRY where this occurred? Mexico is staunchly Roman Catholic and Mary is their highest Saint. While insulting the Christians in all countries where Mary is venerated (most definitely NOT the United States and its Protestant core) the good people of Mexico must be aghast. I would expect to see Playboy Mexico to be either a) boycotted or b) physically attacked.
Latino machismo will tolerate only so much insult.
SeniorD on December 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Ha!
Good Lt on December 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM
You do have to laugh at Fox News’ subhead, though:
“Mexican Playboy Runs Racy Cover”
Well, that’s certainly new, isn’t it?
BigD on December 15, 2008 at 4:38 PM
And you are right. Immaculate Conception means Mary was born without original sin. People who are not Catholic and don’t know what they are talking about should shut up.
Blake on December 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Cicero: 1 Mark: 0
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Oh please kirkill, we all know dk is a hairy-armpit lovin’ birkenstock wearing butch feminist fan.
That’s what them thar enlightened people call “fashion.”
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Kind of childish. Let us step out of fantasyland for a while and move into the real world. Yeah, if the God of the bible created the world, he could at least come out with a new edition. Years ago when people believed in ghosts and witches and were a stone’s throw out of loincloths God decided to come for the only time. Those around supposedly thought that the world was going to end in their lifetime, so that part took a little massaging.
Really if the God of the Bible created the world, first he would have learned to write Greek a little better. Especially from a God that seemed to love Greek so much, being that he basically modeled his son after Bacchus.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Ah, there’s nothing like the dripping prejudice of atheists against Christians on a forum where we’re all supposedly on the same side.
Two can play that game, dk, but then it would never stop. So go ahead and insult us. I won’t return the much deserved favor.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:42 PM
“Ed, you must oppose pornography to the extent you oppose abortion. It leads to damnable (grave) sin. Failure to call for its abolishment is tantamount to “cooperation with evil.””
It’s comments like this that make it very difficult for me to defend the importance of Christianity as the basis for what our society here in America is based on. The loss of many of our Christian values is what is going to lead to our demise, but to the extent that the comment suggests we legislate morality, well that’s just wrong.
rayvet on December 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM
No, that’s the topic of the thread.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Which seems somehow ironic, considering the nature of Bacchus.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Dee2008,
before you start declaring winners and losers, perhaps you should take a moment to determine if the points being made are accurate.
Here’s my entire quote, precisely where did I declare that I was talking about Jesus?
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM
As we all know, Moses was quite the infamous Greek.
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Lev, you speak of God as if He were human. That’s a false premise.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Sorry Mark…should have given Lev the credit on that one.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to the followers of the so-called Religion of Peace how to express criticism without resorting to rioting, murder, threats of murder, etc.
Disturb the Universe on December 15, 2008 at 4:46 PM
So exploiting people explicitly for their bodies and destroying their psyches doesn’t quite reach child murder on the chopping order of things to circumvent?
Porn can either be legal or illegal.
Don’t pretend that it’s legality is not in some form legislating someone’s morality. Specifically the morality of those who find nothing wrong with pornography.
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Mark was not trying to be offensive. LevStrauss was and is.
Blake on December 15, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Let’s call him superhuman if you like.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM
LevStraus,
I agree that your desire to display your ignorance and anger is kind of childish.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM
He didn’t write Greek and his son didn’t even speak it.
That’s a Catholic thing. Other Christians don’t believe that.
Either way, I think even Catholics agree that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, so the point is moot.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Seriously does anyone really look at Playboy anymore? I don’t think so.
HondaV65 on December 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Supernatural is far more accurate.
I thought the topic of this thread was a naked woman who is under the guise of a religious figure. Her virginity or lack thereof should be irrelevant unless only women who’ve had sex can take their clothes off in public.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The difference between Christians and other faiths is that Christians are used to being insulted, hated, persecuted, and misunderstood. They take it as a badge of honor.
ramrocks on December 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
No, in no way human. God. And way beyond our understanding.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Precisely.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM
68, but who’s counting.
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Hey Lev, what keeps you from quietly holding to your own beliefs and letting others hold to theirs? What need compels you to insult people whose faith doesn’t hurt you in any possible way? Do you have an urge to demonstrate your superior intelligence to the rest of us?
Not being religious myself, I would find the idea of insulting people who are religious to be kind of twisted.
Cicero43 on December 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Atheist? Who’s an Atheist? Oh, is that supposed to be me because I said something against christians? That must be it…you’re either a christian or you’re an infidel, right? And, who said we’re all on the same side here? Didn’t you know that Hot Air really stands for Heretics Anonymous? Just ask Allah.
dk on December 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM
“Turn the other cheek”?
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM
If he is outside of your understanding, how can you know that he is in no way human?
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Although I find the photo offensive, if any Christian were to threaten or harm the model, photographer, editor, or anyone else associated with Playboy, I would loudly condemn the action.
Yet, when Muslims rage violently over mere cartoons or kill Theo Van Gogh for a short film, few of their brethren condemn the action and those who do equivocate.
Disturb the Universe on December 15, 2008 at 4:55 PM
But Paul did as did most educated people. Just as English is today. Your complain is one of the lamest against Christianity that I’ve heard yet.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Catholics ARE Christians, Eddie.
GoodSamaritan on December 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Yeah, well, at least this’ll give Christopher Hitchens something to jack off to.
Drum on December 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Isn’t that what the Muslims claim the Koran is?
Disturb the Universe on December 15, 2008 at 4:58 PM
What are people who want to quietly hold onto their beliefs doing a blog thread? If there is a story about Bush or Obama should I scold all the people posting opinions to keep it to themselves?
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM
No the topic of this thread is how Christians react to people who go out of their way to offend their religion, vs. how muslims react.
You are the one who decided the topic of the thread was how many different ways you could be offensive to Christians.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I guess so, but if you build a house on a foundation of sand….
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM
ramrocks on December 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Funny, I thought it was that other religions don’t come pestering you at your home on the weekends.
dk on December 15, 2008 at 5:00 PM
According to the Bible he was both fully human and fully God.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Because then he would be within our understanding.
Wow. What a whiner. I assume you’re an atheist based not just on this comment (you’re hardly new to the site) and suddenly you’re crying “infidel”.
Sorry, I offended your delicate sensibilities. Apparently you can dish it, but you just can’t take it.
I’ll treat you with kid gloves from now on even as you insult me and my beliefs, since I obviously can’t treat you the way I would anyone else.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:02 PM
And curious, since there appears to be confusion, where would that passage be found?
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:06 PM
What are Christians doing looking at Playboy? Doesn’t that violate the Top Ten List?
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM
I am sure all this publicity helped sell the magazine out quickly.
Mission accomplished.
albill on December 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM
It’s simple. Just don’t answer the door. Or say, “I’m not interested, thank you” and then close it.
Disturb the Universe on December 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM
LevStraus:
You know that “the Immaculate Conception” refers to the doctrine that Mary was conceived in the usual way but devoid of the stain of Original Sin, right?
You aren’t mixing that up with the Virgin Birth (of Christ), right?!?
You’re not half as clever as you think you are. Try harder next time.
fivefeetoffury on December 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Research, we have to know what we shouldn’t be looking at…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
You’re getting warm.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:09 PM
By the letter of the law, no, unless their wives are posing that month.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Setting aside the Mohammad cartoons issue for a minute…. here’s what you need to ask yourself – Would they put the image of a woman in full Burqa, with holes cut out near her goodies?
And the difference is, the Virgin Mary, was a Virgin… not a slut who’d pose naked for a magazine. You can’t compare that to imagery showing Mohammad as violent, because that is actually accurate.
RightWinged on December 15, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Because humans understand other humans. And because scripture tells us that He is God and not human. Look, it’s clear you choose not to believe. I understand that it’s a struggle for some of us to have faith in things we can’t experience directly. But you should understand that many people look beyond tangibles to find meaning, because tangibles don’t have enough explanatory power. And that’s where faith comes in. You seem to want to define Christians as unintelligent. I think you underestimate us.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Not even close. It’s in the 20s over here.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Yes yes, a horrible mistake I made. Mixing one fantasyland idead with another, my bad. Get rid of immaculate conception and replace it with virgin birth, all fixed.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Try Col 2:9
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Mark, I was talking about God, not Jesus. Jesus was both. But God is God.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »