Comments on: An upstanding member of the public http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/ A sudden squeal in medias res Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:10:44 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-45 Nearly Legal Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:10:38 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-45 @UE - Grins @John - and were good on cats, apart from the mummification. Sometimes, one just has to let Tiddles go... @UE – Grins
@John – and were good on cats, apart from the mummification. Sometimes, one just has to let Tiddles go…

]]> By: John Bolch http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-44 John Bolch Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:01:15 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-44 NL: Those Egyptians knew how to do religion. NL: Those Egyptians knew how to do religion.

]]> By: Usefully Employed http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-43 Usefully Employed Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:58:41 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-43 This from a Comment is Free piece on the Guardian website: This case is actually clear-cut because the Christian suing the Baltic Centre is theologically confused. Every good Bible-believing Christian must know that Christ was all God and all-man (which is an impressive 200% being) and that he is "one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). That means it is orthodox belief that Christ had a penis, which was at least once erect. Even the evangelical minister who taught us RE knew that, and I remember him admitting how troubling he found the thought of his saviour suffering sexual temptation. This from a Comment is Free piece on the Guardian website:

This case is actually clear-cut because the Christian suing the Baltic Centre is theologically confused. Every good Bible-believing Christian must know that Christ was all God and all-man (which is an impressive 200% being) and that he is “one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). That means it is orthodox belief that Christ had a penis, which was at least once erect. Even the evangelical minister who taught us RE knew that, and I remember him admitting how troubling he found the thought of his saviour suffering sexual temptation.

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-42 Nearly Legal Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:54:19 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-42 Bast? Bast?

]]> By: John Bolch http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-41 John Bolch Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:32:36 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-41 Actually, a certain religion named its prophet after my cat. Actually, a certain religion named its prophet after my cat.

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-39 Nearly Legal Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:06:46 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-39 But how confused is this? Firstly she complains that there was no Mohammed, as if failing to be an equal opportunities outrage-iste was an offence. But then, precisely because an upright Christ, Mohammed, Bhudda, Jahweh etc. would not actually be prosecutable as blasphemous, they have to go for 'public decency'. Sad, pathetic and very annoying people, her and the CLC. But how confused is this? Firstly she complains that there was no Mohammed, as if failing to be an equal opportunities outrage-iste was an offence. But then, precisely because an upright Christ, Mohammed, Bhudda, Jahweh etc. would not actually be prosecutable as blasphemous, they have to go for ‘public decency’.

Sad, pathetic and very annoying people, her and the CLC.

]]> By: Usefully Employed http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/an-upstanding-member-of-the-public/#comment-38 Usefully Employed Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:41:11 +0000 http://nearlylegal.wordpress.com/?p=33#comment-38 In the article I read, the complainant said that the artist wouldn't have dared show Muhammad in the same way. First up I think she misses the point of the exhibition, which targets icons, like Mickey Mouse, and Jesus is far more of an icon than Muhammad, who Muslims can't depict. It also creates another circular argument - she'll no doubt be appalled at the violent reactions to the Mohamed-head-bomb-Danish-cartoon-thing, and the fuss over the bear after which John Bolch presumably named his cat, but at the same time she's ever so jealous of how effectively those reactions seem to work. So they want in on the act. Pretty shameful. In the article I read, the complainant said that the artist wouldn’t have dared show Muhammad in the same way. First up I think she misses the point of the exhibition, which targets icons, like Mickey Mouse, and Jesus is far more of an icon than Muhammad, who Muslims can’t depict.

It also creates another circular argument – she’ll no doubt be appalled at the violent reactions to the Mohamed-head-bomb-Danish-cartoon-thing, and the fuss over the bear after which John Bolch presumably named his cat, but at the same time she’s ever so jealous of how effectively those reactions seem to work. So they want in on the act. Pretty shameful.

]]>