Milk-carton alert: Millions of rampaging Christians missing after Playboy “Maria” outrage
posted at 4:00 pm on December 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Weren’t you just telling us that you are an expert on Christianity?
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Now you throw out challenges, here is one for you…
Why do you think I think Matt 7:6 pertains to you?
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:16 PM
No I won’t.
that’s because I don’t perform a moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam, or certainly between Christianity and Islamism.
If you can’t get past the moral equivalence, perhaps you ought to quit writing.
pabarge on December 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM
You know what, that does ring a bell. Some guy named Rambam wrote a book about this stuff. And he said that god couldn’t have a “face” because he is not a human or an animal, so face actually meant something like face of his existence. And “living” could mean something like gaining wisdom. And “man” could have yet another meaning. And Exodus 33:23 means thus…oh wait he didn’t discuss that actual line…but you know stuff like that, is that what you mean?
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:18 PM
That is your problem, churches are full of women who look like this…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Matt 7:6…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Because you have a fear of swine? But you shouldn’t fear swine, if you can live in the mud without being trampled, methinks it is other people that should be worried about being trampled.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Maria did that — several times, if the webshots of the edition are any guide.
Ed is a practicing Catholic. I guess that thought momentarily slipped his mind.
unclesmrgol on December 15, 2008 at 5:22 PM
“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.”
Yes, I agree. Now Morissey, are you going to take back your excited post about being featured in Playboy Magazine’s list of top ten blogs a couple of years ago at Captains Quarters? And your subsequent request that all your readers go out and buy a copy?? Get a little consistency dude. Or honesty.
Gaunilon on December 15, 2008 at 5:25 PM
That “some guy” is Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon, an important Jewish scholar. I’m not Jewish and not entirely familiar with his work, but based on what you wrote, I’d probably agree…especially the part about the face of God.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Do you want to stand by your foolish answer? You challenge others but when you are challenged you run and hide.
Try and answer what the bible meant…why do you think I chose that verse?
Let’s see if you can have an intelligent conversation.
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM
That line would actually admit that God has a face but that looking at it would kill you. The man did glow for like a whole week or so after God just passed by.
In fact, according to the Bible, we’re made in God’s image, so yes, he would look something like us, because we look something like him.
Now, whether that means our bodies our identical or if the comment was more metaphorical is another discussion.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Fear?
If I said giving books to the illiterate is stupid, would you then say I’m afraid of people who can’t read?
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Yeah, you’re probably right. I do hate to waste pearls.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:28 PM
What do Christians do for their ‘stroke material’? Oh, they just break a couple commandments with their neighbor’s wife and take that act out of the equation.
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Like most atheists, LevStraus only has a surface level familiarity with things religious. Of course he has convinced himself that such an understanding is all he needs, because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these things that he doesn’t understand, must be wrong.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
dk,
Some Christians are hypocrites, therefor all Christians are?
Some elements of the Christian religion bear a passing resemblence to earlier religions, therefor Christianity is bbased on plagarism?
As to the charge of fear mongering, that depends on what you mean by the term, but I have no doubt that your definition is as sloppy as the rest of your insults.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Why are you so phalicly focused? Playboy is beneath contempt yet you have the inside scoop on Hef’s arousal ability. You must be pretty special to have such up close access to Hef.
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Alisyn Camerota in a low-cut minidress, and you guys are seriously focused on the Playboy – Catholic – Mexico story? What happened to the HotAir that I once knew?
This is a travesty.
Jaibones on December 15, 2008 at 5:35 PM
…sorta, kinda tells ya something about the two sets of folks bein’ contrasted here, don’t it….
…let Senor Heffner and all the other little porn-lice do their thing…you can besmirch religious icons without the religion losing any speed…after all, the Romans crucified Christ…that’s a damned-site more serious than this juvenile insult at the Mexican Madonna….
…the larger cultural implications should be considered, though…the Virgin of Guadalupe is a symbol of Mexico, after all…more than religious insults are in play here….
…and, yet, I don’t see “Million Man March” crowds waving signs in LA, Denver, Houston, etc. as mad about this obvious slam at Mexico’s cherished symbol as they were about American immigration laws…interesting….
Puritan1648 on December 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Yes, you caught us. We’re all going to our neighbor’s wife to stroke. In fact, it’s easier for me since I live in an apartment and have access to all sorts of married women within walking distance, that way me and my husband don’t have to compete over the same one.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Ed Morrissey wrote:
Sadly, this is the case, since recent popes have sought to rule over an emasculated church and promote a kind of ball-less militancy in the USA and around the world.
TheMightyQuinn on December 15, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Surely. I’m sorry but this is pretty funny.
So God decided he needed a son and thought that rather than blink one out, I Dream of Jeanie style, he’d impregnate some lucky virgin on Earth. Nah, that wouldn’t mess with her mind. That almost seems crueler then putting some innocent looking half naked girl in a magazine for men to leer at.
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I take it you don’t have E!TV.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Don’tcha love people sitting in front of their computers in their jammies typing in these disgusting things that they’d NEVER EVER really say to anyone’s face? So rdred, was that cathartic? Feel better now?
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:41 PM
She sure doesn’t look innocent to me.
kingsjester on December 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM
You’re going to give apacalyps an aneurism with that comment.
I do think the cover is in bad taste for a Mexican publication, although I think the picture itself is quite mild (that cloth covers up quite a bit). As other commenters have stated, though, Christianity will survive being mocked and parodied, even on the cover of a sexy magazine.
And I do wish they’d do something similar with a woman dressed in a headscarf and nothing else – Arabic women can be quite stunning. It won’t happen, I know, but one can dream.
Anna on December 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM
There are many real places in the world where the church is being persecuted — like Asia for one. By persecution, I mean “life and death” situations. I think B16′s attention is probably focused on those things more than on a sick American porn magazine.
ramrocks on December 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Nothing hotter than a hypocritical Christian who talks a good game but does the whole neighborhood. I didn’t think I had to write wife/husband but in your case I should have written wife/husband and possibly, ‘pets.’
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM
You’ve missed the entire point of Jesus being human. At best I could understand God just making Joseph an angel or something, but to just blink Jesus out Jeanie style would completely defeat the entire purpose of Jesus even coming to Earth.
Also, you’ve got to put this in context. Mary’s cousin had just gotten pregnant at an old age, and her husband lost the ability to speak into he wrote some magical words. Mary wasn’t conflicted, and after Joseph met with an angel, he wasn’t either.
And what’s cruel about putting a half naked woman on the cover of Playboy? Unless I’m mistaken, she got a say in the matter.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Oooooh. And the s***pile just keeps growing. Very nice.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Yeah, I feel great, thanks. That was pretty harmless. Why wouldn’t someone say something like that to someone’s face if it is what they believe? It’s an observation. You may think it is inaccurate or to use your word, ‘disgusting’ but I take offense to the OP’s comments about ‘stroke material’ and his/her tarnishing a group of people based on that.
But I didn’t see you comments about that post. You are seletively outraged. Excellent!
grdred944 on December 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
guys,
I strongly recommend that we all just ignore grdred944. It’s more than obvious that his only goal is to try and get one or more of us into a shouting match so that he can convince himself that he matters to someone other than himself, and just maybe, his mother.
Ed. Does behavior like that rise to the level of banning?
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:50 PM
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here?
Elizabeth’s husband was struck mute until his son, John was born. Nothing in there about magical words.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Oh, you got me again, grdred. We also go around looking for stray dogs on the weekends. We haven’t been caught yet but with a meddling poster like you, it’s only a matter of time.
Heh. I’ll have to post and run then.
Well, the last time that happened, Theo Van Gough was shot and stabbed in broad daylight while biking to work.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:54 PM
No, he had to name his son John.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 5:58 PM
You won’t have a tough time making the case that this is so much different? Lay it out for us then.
You missed the point completely- the Mohammed cartoons were offensive to Muslims and the result was massive riots, violence and threats. The Playboy cover is offensive to many Christians- Catholics in particular. There was criticism, but no thousands of rioters, no killings, no state-sanctioned death threats.
That Playboy- just as those who penned the Mohammed cartoons- does and should have the right to publish material that some find offensive isn’t really in question.
Hollowpoint on December 15, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Oh, I know. I’m sure there’s some underground racy magazines (or photos at least) over there, though, with the same images they’d riot over if a Westerner published them.
Anna on December 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Y’know, some of the commenters around here exhibit all the intelligence and classy behavior of a “Girls Next Door” episode on E!TV.
kingsjester on December 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Esthier, I’m outraged.
Comparing grdred944 to a dog is an insult to dogs. He’s nothing more than lowlife pond scum sent over from DU or other places where hatred is nectar and ignorance bread.
Oh, and Ed? The Mo editorial cartoons and this smut have nothing to do with each other. The target audience of editorial cartoons is the general public, the target audience for this is Playboy readers.
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 6:03 PM
No, I’d say you don’t want the illiterate to ever learn to read. I didn’t use the word fear in a negative sense meaning the person is a coward, more like that was the outcome I feared would happen. I meant do not dislike the outcome, where dislike would be to fear the outcome. Or I guess you could say that giving the illiterate is a waste of books, and if you gave the illiterate books and they never bothered to learn to read, that was the outcome you feared would happen.
LevStrauss on December 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM
The only difference between grdred944 and LevStrauss is that LevStrauss appears to know bigger words.
They both go out of their way to insult people in order to feed their own egos.
MarkTheGreat on December 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Playboy tasteless? You don’t say.
Oh, and that is a pretty hot priest.
Security Mom on December 15, 2008 at 6:14 PM
…and run when challenged.
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I’m seething.
Hey, where can I buy a Playboy magazine?
perroviejo on December 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Call me when they put a picture of Mo’s child wife Aisha on the cover of Playboy.
Borislav on December 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM
How the fuck did this website get militant atheists?
Apologetic California on December 15, 2008 at 6:53 PM
It’s amazing to me that Mexico would tolerate this sacrilige. The Mexicans I know would certainly not.
gary on December 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM
You guys are missing the point of the article. I could care less about the cover; however, I find it interesting that most publications find it easy to criticize Christianity for not being permissive enough while at the same time fearing to criticize Islam because they want to claim sensitivity. In truth, these editors are afraid of being killed by extremists. No such fear exists with Christianity, in spite of what people on the left proclaim.
jakabok_botch on December 15, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Let’s see Playboy do one with a likeness of Aisha (Mohammed’s nubile wife) on the cover. Then let’s compare the difference in reaction.
Mojave Mark on December 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Monday: time for troll to be rude….
Branch Rickey on December 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Riots in Mexico! Youths on a rampage. Catholic fatwas galore. Buildings and cars burning. Oh, the humanity. Oops, wrong religion. As you were.
Mason on December 15, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Nowhere; they don’t shave.
ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I think our jewish friends would have us beat on that but still, christians are the only ones allowed to be insulted.
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Are you an athiest? If not, then I assume you do believe in a higher being. Which is it?
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Maybe I missed something, but there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of the fact that this happened in Mexico, a profoundly Catholic country, and not the U.S. In the U.S. it would be calculated to rile up a certain segment of the religious. In Mexico it was intended to offend virtually the entire culture.
What we think of this vis-a-vis any perceived offense to Muslims in pointing out established patterns of barbarity is a non-sequitur in this debate. More, it’s inane.
warbaby on December 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM
+1!
ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
ramrocks on December 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM
+1
Silante! ramrocks!
Branch Rickey on December 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Child pornography is still illegal. (for now)
Corsair on December 15, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Isn’t that the case anytime you do anything?
The point with pearls and swine is more of a known outcome rather than a feared one. Pigs have no idea what to do with pearls and can’t possibly figure it out. Even if they did, they’re still pigs, so the pearls wouldn’t make them more attractive and thus would be wasted anyway.
Illiterate people have at least a chance of reading a book, but pigs have no chance of even finding pearls useful.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 7:51 PM
No sh*t.
And c’mon. She’s cute. I’d hit it.
wccawa on December 15, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Here’s my proof that a God may exist (I believe he DOES exist, but hear me out).
Computer programs create AI. Many believe that eventually AI will be so intelligent that it will be able to think for itself. It will be able to reason like we do. Now think of us as being part of a HUGE computer program. Perhaps the Sims 204 or something like that. Now everying in this universe consists of Atoms and even sub-atomic particles. Now think electrons and protons. Now think 0′s and 1′s.
So think of God as a computer program who has created AI so intelligent that it was the ability to reason. 1′s and 0′s is stuff on the atomic level. Hence why if you truely break everything down to the tiniest level it all comes from the same thing. Either “on” or “off”. Now, let’s get to different animals. Different combination of words, forming “bits” and “words” to create different attributes to different animals. Some animals have coding simular to other animals (ahem…humans and apes…). Now, like a programmer can use software to “add” and “delete” items with a click of the mouse, the “program” (read: God) can do the same. Now, just like files on the computer deteriorate with age and use so does an animal, a human, plants, animals, so forth. Computers have virus’s that spread. So do biological beings. We can’t see God. A program can not see it’s programmer.
Now before you athiests out there say “you a friggin’ stupid”, give it some actual thought. If you ever created a program, you created “something” out of “nothing”.
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Yes, I believe in God. I’m a Christian.
Esthier on December 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Thomas Aquinas said, “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” This is why we got into the ‘pearls before swine’ discussion above. Your analogy is interesting and inventive, but don’t be disappointed if the atheists in the house don’t buy it.
Dee2008 on December 15, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Whoops. Realized I quoted the wrong quote.
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Are you an athiest? If not, then I assume you do believe in a higher being. Which is it?
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Yeah, I know. Still, one day when I actually have the time I won’t to type up a far more understable and thought-out version of it. What I typed a few posts ago is a quick-off-the-top-of-my-head version of it but this is actually something I’ve been thinking about for quite some time.
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 15, 2008 at 8:12 PM
As a Latina I can definitely see the outrage that this would do to Mexicans, and of course Playboy Latin America knew what they were doing when they pulled this stunt. This will be talked about for weeks. Sad part is, more mags will be sold. Controversy, as sex, sells.
OTOH, Father Morris, PLEASE come to Pennsylvania or Ohio…any church, anytime, anywhere…will drop EVERYTHING to attend one of your masses! :D
Allison is definitely Kim Raver’s twin…can cover for her on “24″.
Kim Raver (one of her pics at IMDB)
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3399653632/nm0005339
Compare to Allison
http://greenroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/23/blood-suckers/
ProudPalinFan on December 15, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Oh, lookie here, another Hitchens Worshiper:
Don’t wast your time with fools like this, he knows nothing about the Bible, much less about the Greek language – I mean, good grief, he actually thinks the Old Testament was written in Greek! But, he does know how to stir up a ton of angry posts simply by spewing forth the usual atheist nonsense.
He’s an ignoramus folks, ignore him… it’s not worth the trouble. There are a lot of other people out there who have serious questions, and are looking for serious answers. Those are the ones who deserve our time.
Joe Pyne on December 15, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Don’t panic!
As we speak,er type,the tea bazaars,the bingo’s are in full,
finiancial fund raising,money is coming in hand-over-fist!
The old English ladies* are planning,organizing,and priorit
izing the targets,getting the appropiate ordances,and list
ing said targets in importance!
Oh ya,there plotting and planning,over crumpits and fine
imported English Tea,this is a once in a lifetime revenge
reprisal,therefore they’ll be drinking tea out of Royal
Dolton Collector teacups,and tea plates at every Church!
Oh ya,payback will be sweet,Old ladies* pouring over maps,
cell-phone texting the orders,and hunkered down in Church
basement Bunkers!
Oh ya,Christians will be on the warpath!!!(Snark!).
*(canopfor deeply regrets any besmirchment,or war-planning
of English old ladies,or any old ladies,or any Church,
Christians or otherwise,and is not,therefore an attempt
to put’everybody’in said,boat!)————–:)haha.
canopfor on December 15, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Wait a tick,I’ve got the solution!
A good ole’fashion ‘Playboy book Burning’!
And,of course,I’m kidding!A Hem.
canopfor on December 15, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Sure. Something like that could be happening, though the animals and plants are unlike hardware deterioration in that they are programmatically designed to degrade as part of their life cycle.
If God were the programmer, he could write functions like “add” or “delete” but agents (us people) within the program might be able to view the function behavior within the OS or on the hardware. With more work God could virtualize the environment away from all of his hardware so that all the agents could see with the tools they develop was the “universe” they inhabited, but the behavior of the “add”, “delete” function would still be measurable from within the environment.
dedalus on December 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Seems to me they’re tarnishing themselves.
Anyone who uses pornography is a pathetic loser.
The only people more pathetic and sick are the pieces of garbage who peddle it.
NoDonkey on December 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM
If I see him, I’ll throw my shoes at him!
: P
jgapinoy on December 15, 2008 at 9:11 PM
You would be surprised how many atheists are economically literate enough to be capitalists.
That said, this thread has gotten to have less class than its subject matter. (I regret having had a part in sending it down that road)
Count to 10 on December 15, 2008 at 9:28 PM
I thought she was pretty. But, can see why Mexican’s would be upset at the picture. Playboy has some very great articles in there. Been years since I bought one though. I was asked to be in Playboy, about 12 years ago. Said NO Thank you! Wasn’t even flattered. Is kind of controversy, but don’t see the Muslim Cartoon was close to this. But do get the point. Mexico isn’t rioting, killing or yelling for Hef to apologize.
sheebe on December 15, 2008 at 9:47 PM
I don’t follow that logic.
I don’t believe there were any Christians who defended the cartoons who believed they weren’t offensive to Muslims.
The defense was in response to:
1) Islamic over-reaction – violence and fatwas are not the proper responses to being offended.
2) The MSM cowering lack-of-coverage to the cartoons where they fretted and gnashed their teeth. Considering some of the REALLY offensive things directed toward Christianity that got pooh-poohed by the MSM (crucifix in a glass of urine, portrait of Mary made out of dung, etc. etc.), Christians felt a little bewildered that the MSM didn’t take the same tact with the cartoons.
I should also point out that even WHEN the MSM covered the cartoon issue, they never SHOWED the cartoons – they either didn’t show them or blurred them out.
In contrast, news articles discussing the Playboy issue have made sure that we can ‘check out’ the cover to our heart’s content.
Religious_Zealot on December 15, 2008 at 9:50 PM
A few newspapers papers did but, overall, you’re right.
aengus on December 15, 2008 at 9:54 PM
?
Tzetzes on December 15, 2008 at 9:56 PM
“Our Western traditions of free speech and open debate have allowed offended Christians to protest the publication without massive violence and threats of death.”
Don’t ignore the mountain of dead bodies of free thinkers who challenged the prevailing religions so we have those rights today. The church doesn’t kill people now because we don’t tolerate their repression and we don’t tolerate it from fascist Muslims either.
If tolerance was a core belief of Christianity then history would be very different. Most of Western History is full of righteous murder of one kind or another.
lexhamfox on December 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM
And most of the 20th century was filled with amoral godless bastards mowing down everyone who stood in their path.
History isn’t kind to godless cretins in power either. In fact, the godless cretins managed to make up for all the death of the religious cretins in a single 40 year period from 1939 to 1979.
BKennedy on December 15, 2008 at 10:26 PM
While there has been, unfortunately, killing and murder done in the name of religion…
…most of the violence done throughout history has been done in the name of power and wealth (most especially land wealth).
Religious_Zealot on December 15, 2008 at 11:03 PM
True, but technology keeps pushing the cost of killing 1,000 people cheaper and cheaper. Compound bows, steel, muskets, rifles, etc. have all increased the scale of applying death.
Of course poison gas, trains, automobiles and planes in the 20th century upped the ante again. The Japanese used planes to attack us in 1941, but they had to build the planes and carry them on large boats over the Pacific. Sixty years later Atta and others bought airline tickets and killed almost 3,000 Americans.
Don’t know what will motivate the next nutcase, but nuclear or biological weapons could increase the bodycount even further.
dedalus on December 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Ed, were you drinking when you posted this?
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Thanks for the history lesson…now about 2008…
right2bright on December 15, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Yep. After some genius invented the unbiblical doctrine of being born with sin to justify baptizing babies, another genius said “Well, Jesus was born. Wouldn’t that mean he was born with sin?”
Whoops.
So instead of admitting they were wrong, they fabricated another doctrine, this time Mary was born without sin so she could have a son without sin. Nothing about that in the Bible anywhere either, but who cares, since these people couldn’t read the Bible anyway (Latin is tough when you are kept illiterate by your feudal lord).
Ironically, the Protestant denominations who teach birth-sin don’t have a problem with the paradox of Jesus being born and yet sinless. They just say “He was special” and call it a day.
TMK on December 16, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Yawn.. Hef is trying to insult Christians again..
about as predictable as Madonna re-inventing herself into someone who still hates republicans and is still a skank..
DaveC on December 16, 2008 at 12:46 AM
I am not a devout, Church going on a regular basis religious person of any faith, but I’ll chime in regarding your comment. And yes, I have visited Churches of different denominations, including Catholic, as well as Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc.
Who does that in Christian Church on Sundays?
That is more likely to occur at disco/dance clubs, “meat markets” where women want to be hunted, and to hunt men, and where those women check out the comepetition, and one another’s clothes, and where metrosexual men check out one another’s clothes, and that comparison of one another’s clothes occurs in Hollywood, Theater, and Musical Entertainment celebrity events, such as the Academy Awards, the Golden Globe Awards, the Tony Awards, the SAG and AFTRA awards, the Grammies, etc.
It might occur at Washington Insider elitist snob events as well.
It is remarkable that you dug out such a preposterous, weird scenario for yourself to identify and project onto devout Christians who attend Church.
It says more about you than it does about your fabricated concept of devout Christians who attend services.
Perhaps you have been listening to too much left wing, Christian bashing, Hollywood stereotyping of Christians.
Whatever floats your boat.
William
William2006 on December 16, 2008 at 2:39 AM
That compare clothes thing might have happened years ago, but not any more. Heck, there are churches who have special dress down services. I usually wear khakis to Mass.
Ellen on December 16, 2008 at 4:53 AM
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.
Dr. Laura always says you have to pick the hill you want to die on. If this is your hill, Ed, you picked a lousy one.
SKYFOX on December 16, 2008 at 5:33 AM
Dude, didn’t you hear? The Pope ordered an elite squad of Swiss Guards to infiltrate the Playboy Mansion. Not to mention the IRA just put a bounty on the photographers head.
I say we petition the Pope for a crusade.
Xaldain on December 16, 2008 at 6:48 AM
You blame on religion what is in reality the human condition.
Can you name a single society, religious or otherwise, that didn’t kill those who challenged authority?
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 7:15 AM
I’m guessing that you have never read the New Testament.
Just because many Christians don’t live up to the ideals, is not evidence that the ideals don’t exist.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 7:17 AM
This discussion is below HA standards. How about a challenge? I would be interested in an intelligent rebuke of any or all of the following four points:
1) Playboy is like an old whore – tacky, dated, broke but still desperate for attention.
2) Christians (and Jews) generally react to these broadsides without fatwas, rioting, etc., which is a great credit to them.
3) The HA site has apparently attracted a noisy subset of militant secularists who will use the thinnest of pretexts to make (usually uninformed) attacks on Christianity in particular. I noticed that the brave Prop 8 protesters carefully avoided mosques.
4) Most atheists and other militant secularists are cowards because they attack people whose very doctrine encourages them to turn the other cheek. Plus the Bible correctly predicts that Christians will be reviled.
johnboy on December 16, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Dk – you appear to know quite a lot about religion, however you know nothing about a relationship with the living God.
The people who do those thing you mentioned are no more Christian than Saddam Hussein, I dont care what they call themselves. And they will have to answer for what they did. I’m sorry you have to base your assessment of Christianity on people who really dont know the risen Christ but just say they do.
abcurtis on December 16, 2008 at 8:15 AM
I’m tired of casting my pearls before swine, folks. I think i’ll go have some coffee.
TTFN.
abcurtis on December 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »