February 06, 2005
There's stupid, and then there's offensive.
I was one of those who thought the NeoCon Religious Right's attack on Spongebob Squarepants for being gay, or associating with gays, or whatever, was a bit on the stupid and pointless side.
However, that was just the RR being the RR. Every few years they break out something silly, we all laugh at them and we get on with our lives.
This response, however, goes way over the line:
So how about it? If they make a stupid, meaningless assault on you, does that give you carte blanche to mock their religion? Is it an over-reaction on my part to find the "attack" on Spongebob trivial and silly, but find this cover offensive to an extreme degree?
Posted by Dan at February 6, 2005 11:00 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There's stupid, and then there's offensive.:
» Cartoon Intolerance from A Small Victory
[Via The Between and Popping Culture] Richard Goldstein in The Nation - Cartoon Wars: Once upon a time, a psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham went on a tear over Wonder Woman. He detected a vagina in the crook of her cartoon... [Read More]
Tracked on February 8, 2005 07:55 AM
I didn't take it as an attack on religion. I couldn't tell you for sure without reading the article inside. It looks more like a whimsical misunderstanding, like when people wore "crucifix gear" when The Passion of the Christ hit theaters. The artist probably thinks that this picture communicates how the RR is holding SpongeBob up as an evil demagogue. The designer, probably not very religious, missed the point that our SAVIOR was the one crucified, communicating the opposite message.
However, no matter what the intent, NOBODY else should ever be elevated to the status of Jesus. Do you see other magazine art mocking Christianity, or any other religion for that matter? Looks like some magazine editors are in need of as much sensitivity training as the RR who stirred up the controversy.
We get some really interesting stories when the two extremes duke it out, huh?
Posted by: Alex D. at February 7, 2005 02:17 AM
That just seems . . . weird. First of all, I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean. It might make more sense if I read the article, but it strikes me as a poor attempt to come up with a compelling image.
I'm not religious, but I'm quite aware that Jesus is kind of important when it comes to Christianity. I mean, he was a cool guy and anyone who's basically involved in saving your soul generally should get a little respect. So no, Dan, I don't think you're overreacting to be offended by this. Jesus being crucified is a pretty crucial image and one that I agree should be treated with respect.
Mostly, I just really don't understand what they're trying to do with this. It seems like a case of very poor judgement. But again, maybe reading the article would cause it to make more sense.
Posted by: Joel Caris at February 7, 2005 05:24 AM
I've taught my children not to make fun of anyone's religion. Period.
Posted by: Ara at February 7, 2005 08:01 AM
Joel said, "I'm not religious, but I'm quite aware that Jesus is kind of important when it comes to Christianity."
Exactly, my friend. I suspect this is a grab for controversy, knowing it would get publicity and move magazines. They can't plead ignorance in this society of what the image of the cross represents, not as an entire publication.
Posted by: Big Dan at February 7, 2005 08:28 AM
Maybe you are upset just because it was Spongbob? Would Scooby-Dog have brought out as much hurt and pain? The average Neo-Con see this type of stuff coming.
Posted by: Jim at February 7, 2005 04:18 PM
Okay.. Just for the sake of discussion here: What IS your definition of a Neo-Con anyways?
Posted by: Cam at February 7, 2005 04:20 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)