Feb. 27, 2006

When the Image Is of Jesus

Muhammad isn’t the only figure who can set off a debate about religious sensitivities and free speech.

Looking for a job?

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,703
Administrative: 2,312
Executive: 191
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

At Virginia’s Radford University, a student cartoon called “Christ on Campus” is entertaining some students, but offending others — and the administration is calling in student journalists to discuss the matter. The cartoon has been published throughout the academic year, but discussion of it has intensified amid the public debates over the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, which have recently spread to American colleges.

At Radford, a publicly supported institution, Christian Keesee said he started the cartoon because “no one ever does a cartoon about Jesus” and he wondered “if I could go there.” A Pentecostal, Keesee said he views the cartoons as “pro-Christianity.” The weekly feature appears in Whim, an online magazine produced by Radford students.

Keesee said he is particularly proud of the “commercialism vs. religion” theme of his Christmas edition of the cartoon, which shows Santa and Jesus fighting and in which Santa stabs Jesus. Keesee said that his seriousness about the messages of Jesus inspired the cartoon. Whim allows readers to comment on the cartoons, and reactions to this one included a range. The work was called “disgusting” and full of “hate” and also praised as insightful, funny, and the cartoonist’s best work ever. (Generally, the comments indicate that this and other cartoons sparked discussion at the university.)

Several of the cartoons explore issues of responsibility — why God would have allowed Katrina to harm so many people in New Orleans, why students think God can solve all of their problems without helping themselves, etc. While a number of the cartoons are not obviously pieces that would upset religious Christians, the uproar over others is less surprising. One cartoon features Jesus being asked by a woman he has been kissing whether he has a condom, while another shows Jesus trying to ignore a gay couple. In a cartoon relevant to the recent uproar over images of the Muslim prophet, Jesus is playing poker with the devil and various non-Western deities, one of whom may be Muhammad.

Keesee said that those who have objected to his work “are too quick to judge the cartoon because it’s not a picture of Jesus with Bible scripture next to it.” And he said that he believes his non-traditional portrayals of Jesus are consistent with Christian belief. “Jesus was a regular guy and by drawing him like that, I think people can relate.”

Not everyone at Radford is relating.

Norleen Pomerantz, vice president for student affairs, said that she requested a meeting with Keesee and his editors because of complaints the university has received. Pomerantz said that the university has not tried to censor or punish, but that the cartoon raises issues.

“We do respect the rights of the students and the student-controlled media to express themselves. That’s important,” she said. But Pomerantz said that “we also want students to be aware of other people’s sensitivities and taste and journalistic standards that they have to adhere to.”

Pomerantz said that she hoped the meetings with students would be “a learning experience” for them.

Keesee said he would meet with administrators, but that he was “shocked” to be called on to defend his cartoons to university officials. “I"m trying to explore issues,” he said, adding that once he started making Jesus a regular in his cartoon, he decided that the cartoons “should make a point.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

A free press and free speech

Neither free speech nor a free press can function in a free society if there are limits; the only acceptable limits occur when either goes over the line and endangers the lives of those who do not consent: for example, it is wrong to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 7:30 am EST on February 27, 2006

The point is made

First, from just reading the linked examples, the cartoons are humorous,and sometimes carry a point as well.The Christmas cartoon was very SouthPark-ish, and the poker one was great. The point made, however, is even stronger—-even if these were reprinted in big city newspapers, no one would be dead, there would not be riots in the street (candlelight marches, maybe), or boycotts of Virgina peanuts and ham. Humor and political satire are part of the Western culture, and should be respected and defended with as much fervor by those who advocate the same respect for Islamic proscriptions. Judeo-Christian heritage has a prohibition “Do not take the name of the Lord in vain", but that is balanced with the freedom of discourse.

Richard, Administration at eastern university, at 8:25 am EST on February 27, 2006

what about responsibility?

Sorry, got to disagree with you guys. Sure, it’s a free speech issue, but just because you can print it doesn’t mean you should. A cartoon disrespecting the religious beliefs of another has no place in a CIVIL society.

Hoosier Prof, at 9:20 am EST on February 27, 2006

Again, Arthur, it’s only a problem when one FALSELY shouts ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. And Hoosier conflates law and ethics. Of course they are separate, but perceived offense isn’t automatically the dispositive factor. Don’t forget to consider the underlying message.

Comm Prof, at 9:50 am EST on February 27, 2006

One standard, please

It’s difficult to say for sure, because the WHIM site lacks a search feature, but as far as I can tell they haven’t published the infamous Mohammed cartoons yet. That tells me they aren’t seriously interested in freedom of the press; they’re just some undergrads looking for Warhol’s 15 minutes. So to the WHIM I say, “Enjoy yourselves, kids — you’ve used up 3 minutes already, and graduation is closer than you think!”

MediaDoc, Associate Professor at East Carolina Univ., at 9:55 am EST on February 27, 2006

I think one important thing to remember is what our role in student development at a university level actually is. Isn’t it our responsibility as educators in a free and democratic society to prepare our students for their independent roles in our society? Isn’t it our reponsibility to ensure that our students become valid and thoughtful members of our society?

I taught Mr. Keesee during his first semester at Radford University, and even then, I knew he was a special young man. He is thoughtful, intelligent, and engaged in his education. He is also highly independent in his thinking and wishes only to inspire meaningful discourse through his art. If more students, more citizens of this nation (Right or Left), would attempt to engage in honest discourse about the world around them, the nation and world as a whole would become a much safe and, yes, responsible place.

The “offensive” nature of his work is seen only by those who are actively seeking offense. Is some of it off-color? Yes ... but it’s satire, an art form designed to force society to look at itself and see the reality of its nature. Mr. Keesee will have my fervent support and the support of all of those who have actually taken the time to speak with him or even, heaven forbid, analyze the meaning is his work for what it is.

James Monaghan, Yes, what about responsibiility? at Radford University, at 10:57 am EST on February 27, 2006

Arthur, There are many times when it is legal, right, and good to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Like when there is a fire. Or when everyone knows that it isn’t a fire (e.g. you are an actor, and the play is about fire.) I would hope that by now, academics could do better than just citing high school civics platitudes to explain the contours of the first amendment. Indeed, the only time when shouting “fire” might result in criminal liability is when others have no choice but to rely on your assessment whether there is a fire, and are prompted to trample their fellow man.

Hoosier Prof, Whether or not someone “should” do something that is completely legal is up to that person. Not you. And not some administrator. You seem to want to impose your values on others, without amending the constitution, which you are free to attempt to do.

Comm Prof, Although I agree with you, the relationship between law and ethics is somewhat complex. According to many legal philosophers, law is simply an “instance” of ethics, and something is not really a law if it isn’t based on some ethical concept.

Larry, at 11:02 am EST on February 27, 2006

Cartoons

While I didn’t agree with the message of any of these cartoons, each was mildly funny. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to suppress cartoons because they deal with a religious subject.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 11:03 am EST on February 27, 2006

Read my lips

Comm Prof writes that I “conflate law and ethics.” If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I separated them — pointing out that what is legal is not necessarily ethical. Larry suggests I want to “impose” my values on others. That’s one out of left field, Larry. On the contrary, I suggested that students SHOULD consider for themselves not only whether their action is legal but whether it would harm others. It’s their call; just don’t ask me to condone every “legal” choice they make.

Where I come from, what this student did is called religious intolerance. That’s my personal opinion. Okay, Larry? Depending on the ethical principles of each member of this discussion, there are numerous ways to decide the issue.

Honestly, some days this old ACLU’er wonders if the knee jerk civil libertarians really believe that everything that happens under the first amendment is worth supporting.

It’s time for the lawyers to bow out and an ethicist to weigh in.

Hoosier Prof, at 11:58 am EST on February 27, 2006

Freedom, responsibility, and a sense of humour

Jefferson asked that three accomplishments be listed on his tombstone: Author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia. That is, he gave us the underpinnings for a free society, removed religious (or other belief) barriers to using that freedom, and helped to establish an educational system to prepare us to use that freedom. Of late, between so-called “politically-correct” policies — a religion with many adherents — more traditional religions, and a decline in the type of American humor exemplified by Twain, Rogers, and Cosby (but thank God for Keillor!), we seem to have forgotten Jefferson’s hard-won gifts.

Freedom should be used responsibly; but when it is not, the Jeffersonian answer is not to restrict freedom, it is to allow for free debate about ideas, unhampered by the religions of equity, diversity, fundamentalism, or neoconservatism.

As to Dr. Arthur Ide — he certainly knows about free speech, because he was one of the best professors of speech and communication at one of the finest small universities in the country when I was an undergraduate there. (assuming it’s the same Dr. Ide.) He was embroiled, as we all were, in one of the early battles of the neocon/fundamentalist/PC religious wars, and I’m sure he is quite aware of the danger of crying fire in a crowded campus. I remember him as voice of sanity in an unsane time, during the beginning of the PC vs neocon/fundamentalist religious wars.

And we should all keep our sense of humor about these things. Read some Keillor today....

Donald Scott, Independent Scholar at The Geo.S Project, at 12:15 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Hoosier, Whether or not it is “right” or not really has nothing to do with it. Of course there are lots of kinds of expression that I wish people would not engage it. Like girls that talk about shopping or wear “Porn Star” T-shirts, or men that talk about sports. These are two reprehensible forms of speech. There is nothing knee-jerk about our reaction. We, and the framers came to the conclusion, that people need to decide for themselves what forms of expression are appropriate, and this isn’t a place for state coercion.

While I might be curious to see your ethical analysis of why this is intolerant (when, in fact, anti-religious cartoons are pretty common in most cultures), you didn’t provide any.

Larry, at 12:15 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Free Speech

The fact that the director of student life merely wants to talk with the young cartoonist can be construed as punishment. College administrators are becoming infamous for starting their prounouncements about controversial material with “I know there’s first ammendment protection, BUT ....” If there is first ammendment protection why do you need to speak with the author of the material? You don’t! Stop the PC enforcement and let our colleges and universities become true marketplaces of idea.

thomassowellfan, at 12:35 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Thanks for asking, Larry. I practice the ethic of reciprocity, the oldest and most universal ethical principle in the world. Applied to this case, the merits of creating such a cartoon could be weighed against more emphathetic considerations, particularly how offensive the cartoon would be to readers who practice the particular religion this student is lampooning.Don, if I follow your logic, we should all be applauding the Danish press for exercising their free speech rights. But your point about humor is well taken. Okay I’m smiling now. As for your mention of Jefferson’s goal of an “educational system to prepare us to use that freedom", would it be too much for me to ask that our students take an ethics or philosophy course along with their civil liberties lessons?

Larry, I don’t recall writing about what is “right", so I would ask you to take more care with the quotation marks. For my part, I apologize for the “knee-jerk” label. Sorry — I’m just pretty frustrated with fellow posters who keep accusing me of free speech suppression. Haven’t heard anyone yet vow to defend to the death my right to speak up for a more civil society.

Hoosier Prof, at 12:50 pm EST on February 27, 2006

not worth dying for

Hoosier, By “right” I didn’t mean to say that you said it, but rather I concede that “right” is a concept that embodies a lot of difficult philosophical concepts and there may be considerable debate. I don’t really want to fight for most people to the death, because death is really a big thing, and would have to know a lot more about your cause before I would even offer my life for it.

Anyway, since the Muslim “world” contains many cartoons that malign other religions (Judaism is a favorite) it would seem that they have opened themselves up to all sorts of cartoon imagery.

Larry, at 1:20 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Cartoon Controversies

I have read, twice in the past two weeks, a highly praised book by Sam Harris, called “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror & The Future of Reason” (WW Norton, 2004), which should be required reading for anybody interesting in weighing in on the various (and growing) cartoon controversies and why they continue to flame. As Harris writes, “One of the central themes of this book, however, is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance — born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God — is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” Religions, in Harris’s opinion, are destroying the world. Harris explains that the paradise of tolerance is utterly impossible to achieve, due to the foundational core of many major religions, ie that one’s personal faith is correct while another individual’s faith — ie Christian versus Muslim — is in error, ie not the “true” faith. Hence, real respect will be forever out of reach, and religious-based terrors embroil various denominations in various locations around the world. Further, countering critics who denounce Islam for violent passages contained in the Koran, Harris carefully notes (and quotes) several alarming kill-the-unbelievers verses in Deuteronomy, which I (a fairly attentive Episcopalian) never noticed or read before. Now I am wondering how those particular tenets came to be ignored or overlooked by Christian denominations, especially since the Bible, according to a 1996 Gallup poll, is considered by 35 percent of Americans to be the infallable, unerring word of God (surely the number has risen since then). “The End of Faith” is a thought-provoking book and well worth one’s reading time, particularly in this tumultuous day and age.

Medina Man, at 2:25 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Can no one read? Can no one get a joke?

These cartoons are funny and thoughtful and well balanced. The Santa-killing-Jesus Christmas strip strikes me as a sad, powerful Christian message. The poker cartoon hit me as a plea to take religions and religious differences less seriously. The condom cartoon—well, if Jesus was God made man, then perhaps He did have to deal with the human side of His nature. And the one about the money-grubbing televangelist is practically a documentary.

But it’s no wonder that the Christ on Campus cartoons have offended someone. No doubt they’ve upset some of the same people who condemn Huckleberry Finn as racist, The Catcher in the Rye as obscene, “i sing of Olaf glad and big” as un-American, and so on and on and on and on. Few people can read. Fewer still can think about what they read.

But surely anyone smart enough to have sensibilities of any kind can understand that life is one long affront to them. So why get worked up over pictures and words? If an artist or author sins, won’t God eventually settle his hash? Divine justice should be good enough for anyone.

Humor, particularly satire, usually offends someone. Sometimes, though, it does the offended party some good by making him think a little. When that happens, the artist has done good work indeed.

Stu Pfied, Aficionado of metaphors, at 4:05 pm EST on February 27, 2006

The Laugh’s On You!

Before sharing quite a bit of interesting information with you, let me own up to some quite awful personal stuff:

First, I am almost an expert regarding humor ... and, in that respect, I’m close to outrageous ... bordering on insane. One time I counted up and discovered I regularly read 54 comic strips and cartoons per day (and those are just my regulars). In addition, I always enjoy reading the satirical work of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, Aldous Huxley, and others and the comedy acts of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Lewis Black, Dave Chappelle, and many more of their ilk are right up my alley.

In my opinion, if humor and satire are not pushing the cusp of acceptability and good taste, then it’s generally a waste of (my) time. For the most part, profanity leaves me cold. As soon as I saw the Mohammad cartoons, I sent them to all of my friends ... but, truth be known, only a few brought either a smile to my face or inspired that wonderful sensation I get when I look at a cartoon and say, “Ain’t that the truth!” (i.e., the frames by Arne Sorensen, Jens Julius, Rasmus Sand Hoyer, and Annette Carlsen, but the latter was just okay)

Needless to say, political cartoons have been around for quite a long time, so if you’d like to see a large number of really pointed ones —- and with Jesus Christ as the lead character — check out Martin Luther’s “Passional Christi und Antichristi” in which the woodcuts drawn by Lucas Cranach the Elder will bowl you over. That Martin Luther was a baaaad ass.

Lately, every time I turn around I hear someone ask, “How would you feel if Jesus were depicted ....whatever?” and when I hear that I can only quote my favorite politician, “Bring it on!”

If I could draw, I’d depict Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha sitting at one of those outside cafes in Paris, sipping a hearty Cabernet Sauvignon. Buddha looks at Jesus and says, “Ah J.C., our glasses are empty, can you do something about that?” After filling their glasses, Jesus says to Buddha, “I hear you’ve been having a blast recently with the Taliban.” Buddha laughs and shoots back, “You know how it is ... we’ve all got our crosses to bear.” Jesus and Buddha dissolve in raucous laughter and look over at Mohammad who sits there stony faced. Jesus looks at him and says, “Hey man, you gotta learn to take a joke.”

Seriously, though, the only time I’m really offended by an obnoxious image of Jesus Christ is when I’m surfing the channels on Sunday morning and stop for a minute or two – I can’t stand more than that – to listen to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

So, before you get bent out of shape one way or the other by Hoosier Prof, check out what cartoonist Mark Fiore has to say about the topic (What would Jesus do?) ...

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0606/fiore.php

No doubt you’ll want to peruse some tasteful tee shirts advertising your religious conviction, so go to either of the following sites ...

http://datomana.com/christian-t-shirts-index.html

http://www.christiantshirts2.com/index.html?FeelGood

I’m quite certain Hoosier Prof and some of his pals will be offended – they seem to be fairly sensitive guys – but the following “Jesus Christ: The Musical” will strike some of you as, well, thought provoking ...

http://www.jokefrog.com/flash/jesus-musical.shtml

Of course you will remember this from President Bush’s tv campaign when he ran against Jesus in the Republican primary of 2003 ...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/g...eass.org%2Fhtml%2Fcontent-jesus.html

And as long as we’re talking politics, you might as well check out what Supply Side Jesus has to say about the economy ...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html

By the way, for those of you who want to share my enthusiasm for political cartoons, here’s a good starting point ...

http://cagle.msnbc.com/

In conclusion, let me suggest that those of you who are so easily bent out of shape by the satirists, comedians, and cartoonists who are amongst the very tiny fraction of us who are “thinking outside the box,” and often balancing on the cusp of acceptability buy yourself a hammer and spend a few days working for Habitat for Humanity. That should focus your mind on much more important things.

As a post script – and I’m afraid you’ll have to copy and paste this URL to your browser — you won’t want to miss ...

http://bertc.com/18Track18l.mp3

I just love that.

RWH, at 4:30 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Jaschik Spins

“Muhammad isn’t the only figure who can set off a debate about religious sensitivities and free speech.”

The cartoons of Mohammad did not result in “debate.” The result has been murder, arson, rioting and at least two acts of war.

Or do you consider those who carry signs that say “Behead Those Who Insult Islmad” to be engaging in “debate.”

Grant Jones, at 5:00 pm EST on February 27, 2006

My Apology

Apparently some are having difficulty with the last URL of my previous post.

If you tried it unsuccessfully, try clicking on Play the song

If that doesn’t work, open your browser (I used Google this time) and type in “Drop Kick Me Jesus Through The Goal Posts Of Life”

Bert Christensen’s Truth & Humour Collection will open and you can click on “Play the song.”

It’s worth the trouble.

RWH

RWH, at 5:20 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Conundrum

1—You are told that you have “Freedom of Speech."2—You are constantly (and strongly) advised to use it “responsibly.”

Question: Do you really have “Freedom of Speech"? ———————-Doesn’t it turn out to be: “Yeah, you can have all the Free Speech you want—as long as I can set the limits"?

normalvision, Prof. of English (ret.), at 8:05 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Normalvision?

Pardon me, Mr. Normalvision, but do you not see the very important and incredibly obvious distinction between restricting speech by force of law and applying social pressure for responsible speech? Your “condundrum” makes no sense. Yes, one still has freedom of speech even when one is told by others “hey, I wish you wouldn’t say that.” We call this “standards.” A person has every right to apply the full presure of conformity against someone acting in outrageous ways: this is how we maintain a civil society. I agree, however, that a person has no right to forcefully prohibit a person from speaking his or her mind: this is how we maintain a free society. The distinction is all important, and all too often missed by folks who want to evoke the 1st amdendment when faced with merely social censure.

cato, prof of english, at 11:05 am EST on February 28, 2006

Your humor is not mine

So RWH and Stu have a sense of humor. And you think you’re so different from anyone else on this post? I’m not easily bent out of shape myself, favoring Boondocks, Get Fuzzy and Jon Stewart-type humor. My bad humor on this subject is not because I’m personally offended by the cartoon material. I happen to be an atheist. My bad humor is about your insistence that it can’t be offensive if one person finds it funny. They used to think holding picnics under lynched blacks was funny, but I doubt the dead guy got the joke. As for “thinking outside the box,” try empathy. It’s a powerful emotion.

Hoosier Prof, at 3:50 pm EST on February 28, 2006

Thanks Hoosier Prof

If I’m not mistaken, Hoosier Prof just made one of my points. He and I apparently share some enthusiasm for the humor of Boondocks and Jon Stewart. He likes Get Fuzzy and that leaves me cold. My friend, Tom, sends me Pooch Café almost daily, and I laugh at approximately 25% of them. I have never, ever – I mean in my entire lifetime — laughed at a frame of Marmaduke (I’m guessing that’s one of HP’s favorites).

We all have different senses of humor ... but when HP and his gang start telling me (1) what I can view and can’t view [“A cartoon disrespecting the religious beliefs of another has no place in a CIVIL society”] or (2) what is acceptable or not acceptable [“Where I come from, what this student did is called religious intolerance. That’s my personal opinion.”] or (3) what is ethical or not ethical [“It’s time for the lawyers to bow out and an ethicist to weigh in.”] or (4) what is civil or not [“Haven’t heard anyone yet vow to defend to the death my right to speak up for a more civil society”] or (5) whether our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, Son of Almighty God can be the object of a good joke, then I’ll introduce him to some of my Jehovahs Witness friends who are inclined to set standards for life in our world far more conservatively than he. Let’s not conform to HP’s standards ... let’s go all the way.

And his comment, “Honestly, some days this old ACLU’er wonders if the knee jerk civil libertarians really believe that everything that happens under the first amendment is worth supporting” makes me wonder just how difficult it is to appreciate that we have to live with more than a little garbage protected under the first amendment in order to protect its underlying purpose.

By the way, HP, did you like my joke about Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha ... or was it too sophomoric for you?

RWH, at 1:40 pm EST on March 1, 2006

Uh...

Just wondering why the statements from the student opposition that have been posted in the Roanoke Times and the Associated Press releases were not included in here? Not that it’s a big deal, I’m just curious.

Anonymous Interest, at 2:50 pm EST on March 1, 2006

Cartoon response

No riots, no burning buildings, no deaths, no masked gunmen, no kidnappings?

Only people arguing that publication should not be allowed. Cartoonists complaining that they get hauled in to defend yourself to the dean, or whatever. Arguing, complaining — that’s free speech. The other stuff isn’t speech, it’s criminal behavior. Big diff.

Kevin, at 3:00 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Once more... read my lips

RWH – Your ad hominem attacks on those who don’t agree with you are not helpful to the discussion. You’re being rude – can we lose the testosterone and debate like adults, please? I really think there’s a fascinating discussion to be had here if you can get yourself past the “screw him if he doesn’t agree with me” stage.

And re-read my posts, please. I would never presume to shut down a colleague or a student. Nor expect them to conform to my (or any) standards. But I can approve of their right to a forum without approving of the content. I’m drawing a fine line here, but as others more knowledgeable than we have pointed out, ethics and law are truly different.

In sum: I will defend your legal right to a forum for whatever you want to create. But I don’t have to consider it all silk purses — some of it will be sow’s ears. And I won’t condone the garbage, finance it, or expose my kids to it.

Nor would I in a million years re-print the Danish Muhammed cartoons. Would you? Your posts suggest you would, and then you’d scratch your head and wonder, “well, I guess not everyone got the joke.” Or do I read you wrong? Where do you draw the line or is it all silk purses to you?

Hoosier Prof, at 3:00 pm EST on March 2, 2006

I’m Sooooo Sorry!!!

Gee whiz, I must have done something quite awful to inspire Hoosier Prof’s critique. He alluded to my “ad hominem attacks”... my “not being helpful” ... my “rudeness” ... my “overabundance of testosterone” ... my “unwillingness to debate like an adult” ... and the fact that I have a “screw him if he doesn’t agree with me” attitude. And then – but maybe I’m being overly sensitive – he suggested I might “condone garbage and want to expose his kid to it.”

And here I am, just a mild-mannered guy trying to have a good laugh when I think something is funny. Well, since all of those things HP ACCUSED ME OF BEING seem to be completely inconsistent with the Clark Kent side of me, I decided I had better read what I said and mend my ways. Okay, here goes.

I have had two posts and a post script in response to Scott Jaschik’s article, and the worst thing I said about anyone in the first post – and it was certainly not directed at HP – was that anyone who is bent out of shape by this matter should spend a couple of days working it off at a Habitat for Humanity site. Naw ... that couldn’t be it.

I did have a short post script to my first post, because I wanted to share one of my favorite tunes, “Drop Kick Me Jesus Through The Goal Posts Of Life” (I have it on my iPod), with IHE readers, but that couldn’t be offensive. It is merely a heart-felt commitment of the musicians to Jesus, framed in the terminology of football. Naw ... that definitely couldn’t be it.

So it must have been my last post. But in that post I thanked HP for helping me make one of my points ... that we all have different senses of humor (Naw ... that couldn’t be it either). Then I quoted him directly five times. Think about it ... I read his stuff and included five quotations directly from his previous posts. I suspect that FIVE DIRECT QUOTES is a record for Inside Higher Ed.

And you know what ... I didn’t say one nasty thing about him ... and, unless I’m mistaken – you be the judge – I stayed precisely at the heart of this discussion the whole way. I even suggested that he was functioning on an intellectual plain so high, he might consider my joke about Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad a bit sophomoric.

Whew! Where did I go wrong?

Now, since HP did ask me some questions, I’ll answer them ... realizing, of course, I may be nailed to the wall – if not the cross – for doing so.

As a matter of fact, I did not post the Muhammad cartoons ... but the first day they were out I sent them to all of my friends. As I stated earlier, I only appreciated three ... and while they were not particularly funny, I thought they were wonderfully biting social commentaries (see my first post). The one that everyone seems to have found so offensive – Mohammad with his head in the form of a bomb – seemed to me to be just so-so ... although I thought the drawing was great.

HP asks where I draw the line. Well, we (I think) have already agreed that I, he, and a randomly selected Jehovah’s Witness friend of mine probably draw the line at different places. Frankly, I draw the line waaaaay over there to the left ... where, from time to time, I hope the ACLU can see me with a powerful pair of binoculars. That’s my answer.

Hoosier Professor keeps reminding us to read his lips. I’m trying ... God knows I’m trying. I just hope he knows I’m a lot more sensitive to his perspective than Bobby Knight would be. Good Lord, I’m trying!

And Scott, please forgive me for turning this into a one-on-one on your dime.

RWH, at 5:30 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Space Opera

“A cartoon disrespecting the religious beliefs of another has no place in a CIVIL society.” Hoosier Prof.Ever? There are some religious beliefs that really don’t deserve much respect. To paraphrase Cicero, there is nothing so ridiculous that some religion or another has not said it. Of course, he was talking about philosophers, but the principle is the same. Ever hear the one about “Xenu, the ruler of the Galactic Confederacy who brought billions of frozen people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs.”? Some quite wealthy and famous people buy into that, but it surely has fabulous cartoon potential.

Bogolov, at 5:30 pm EST on March 2, 2006

Law vs. Ethics, Part Deux

[Sigh] Well, I tried. I’m reminded of the recent research into ideological behavior, where those on the far right and far left were found to refuse to change their positions even after being presented with fact-based evidence to the contrary. RWH, of course you’re right! How could anyone ask you to see the world a little differently??! How would we dare? Why would we bother?? Please do have a very happy life in your bubble.

Scott, for my part, I’m fairly new to InsideHigherEd and while I love your articles, I’ve been disappointed by the amount of posturing by readers. I thought I’d find a great forum to *maturely* engage and discuss alternative POV – instead, it seems to be a haven for the flamers.

Hoosier Prof, at 1:40 pm EST on March 5, 2006

Jobs Related to When the Image Is of Jesus

or search for jobs directly.

Nsf Project Assistant
Bennett College

Bennett College is a small, private, historically Black liberal arts college for women. As a United Methodist Church-related ... see job

Research Fellow
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Instructor/Assistant Professor (Director of on-Line Educator)
Medical University of South Carolina

In the historic, coastal city of Charleston, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) offers a wide range of ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor of Clinical
University of Miami

We strive to deliver the best — in patient care, research, and education. Experience amazing opportunities and outstanding ... see job

Dean of the Diederich College of Communication
Marquette University

Marquette University, a research extensive, urban Catholic, Jesuit institution in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, seeks nominations and ... see job

Faculty — Speech, Tenure Track (9 1/2 Mths), Harrisburg Campus — Fall, 2009
Harrisburg Area Community College

HACC, a leader in education in Central PA, is a comprehensive, multi-campus community college, providing quality instruction ... see job

Technical Assistant
Temple University

The Technical Assistant (Studio Technician of Art and Art Education Dept.) works on main campus and reports to the AAE ... see job

Adjunct Instructor, Economics
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Computer Science Assistant Professor, Req# 0873
Florida Gulf Coast University

The University is located in Southwest Florida midway between Naples and Fort Myers. The 760-acre campus is situated in one ... see job

Senior Biosafety Specialist
Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job