Jesus of Nazareth!

A below the radar national fervor has erupted over some cartoons published in a student run Marxist newspaper "The Insurgent" here at good old University of Oregon. I picked up the issue that has sparked the brouhaha (sp?) about a month ago. I wasn't offended so much by the content (Jesus with a boner, Jesus gay) as the artistic quality of the cartoons. I was reminded of the controversy over those Danish Mohammed cartoons. I thought the most insulting thing about them was that they were so poorly drawn and lacked any sort of editorial insight. The same can be said for the cartoons of Jesus in the Insurgent. So Mohammed has a bomb in his (Indian style) turban. How is that even remotely called "satire?" Likewise, the depiction of a crucified Jesus with a boner doesn't cause me to think or question my beliefs. This may be a good time for me to mention that I'm not religious (hence the use of "of Nazareth" opposed to "Christ" which is the Anglicized word for "christos" or "savior" in Greek) and so can look at each of these subjects through non-defensive eyes.

Last year there was a similar brouhaha (sp? again) concerning a Libertarian student newspaper called "The Oregon Commentator." They singled out a person named Toby, who self-identifies as genderless, as an object for ridicule and potentially violent acts. Unfortunately, the Commentator has their back issues in .pdf format so it isn't easy to find the exact quote. Following the statements, Toby led a crusade to defund the Commentator. Many left-leaning people jumped on the "hate speach" bandwagon calling for the Commentator's cancellation. I happened to be taking an ethics class at the time in which we were required to write an essay taking a stand on the debate. Through much research and critical analysis, I came down on the side of the Commentator. Not because I agree with what they said, which was an intentional provocation, but because I believe in the ideal of free speech. Commentator critics said that the university should revoke their funding due to their unapologetic hate speech. Funding was retained because support of student publications must remain content neutral. Luckily, the correct decision was made and the Commentator's funding remained.

Back to the present controversy. So many of the type of people who defended the Commentator now condemn the Insurgent. To their (probably cynical) credit, the Commentator defends the Insurgent. But the Commentator issue is now beside the point. Other people who probably (and this is an assumption on my part) defended the Commentator and the Danish cartoons are now coming down hard against the Insurgent. Lest you think I am projecting, take a look at what Bill O'Reilly had to say about the Muhammed cartoons and what he has to say about the Jesus cartoons.