There were riots throughout the world today. In New York, Dublin, Paris, Toronto, Sydney, Sao Paulo, and London angry "youths" flipped and burned cars, sacked businesses and stormed embassies to protest a banner that flew over Toronto saying "Jesus sucks."
Oh wait. That didn't happen.
The interesting part about the company that accepted the advertisement, was that it rejected Heil Hitler and other phrases, but felt that Jesus sucks was perfectly acceptable. I feel sorry for Kenny vs Spenny. They're going to have to spend a lot of money on their defense when they face the Human Rights Commission, which I'm sure will treat this the same as Islamaphobia or homophobia.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm sure Ezra will come to their defense. Actually, no he wouldn't.
BTW, don't make stuff up...the company used 'Jesus sucks' because the guy buying the message used the story that 'Jesus' (as in 'hay-soos') was a relative, and that allowed them an out. So I guess your 'interesting part' is kind of moot now.
Right, anonymous and if I called and said my buddy Mohamed was the target for a similar prank I'm sure they would have been just as willing to take the job.
Get a brain.
Anonymous. Two responses
1 - Ezra would come to their defence. I'm sure he would think they are idiots, but that they have a right to their opinions. It's up to "polite society" (as he would put it) to censor them, not the state.
2 - Read further down regarding me "making stuff up:"
Q: They didn’t really believe that though, did they?
A: It allowed them to defend themselves when I offered them the bulls---, because I did say that. I don’t know whether they believed me or not, but I’m sure they just wanted to hear something that would let them off the hook.
Right...so they had an excuse. That was my point. They DIDN'T have an excuse with 'Heil Hitler'. It wasn't because they were favouring one over the other with respect to the message...they chose 'Jesus sucks' because they had plausible deniability. That was the only reason. That means your question is somewhat off the point - or rather, that you're questioning them based on a choice that they didn't make.
In any case, I'm sure most people don't really care that someone's imaginary friend was insulted.
BTW, I didn't hear a peep from Ezra when Catholics were writing in with death threats at PZ Meyers (scienceblogs.com/pharyngula) for desecrating a cracker that just also happened to be the body of Christ. Surely if Phil Donahue announced TEH BLASPHEMY to all of his followers, Ezra must have heard about it. Nope, Ezra wouldn't touch that issue with a 10' pole because it doesn't let him pontificate about the inferiority of brown people. I mean, really - you see him as a defender of free speech because he happened to step into the ring in opposition to the same religious group that supports armed conflict against Israel? You really don't see a conflict of interest there? For that matter, why didn't Ezra post pictures of the Piss Christ and discuss its merits as fine art? I'll tell you why: because he picks and chooses issues that put him opposed to Muslims.
Post a Comment