• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Priest: Playboy cover resembling Mary 'desperate,' 'blasphemous'

Wessexman said:
As a resolute enemy of a lot of what makes up modern liberalism and social democracy I do not welcome the "metaprinciples" of modern western athiesm either.
Click to expand...

Good thing you don't live in the West. :shrug:
 
Wessexman said:
Personally I think In general modern Western athiesm's "metaprinciples" seem to be very much the same as those of modern liberalism and they seem to reinforce each other.
Click to expand...

To really respond to this I would have to find out what you think the metaprinciples of liberalism and atheism are?
 
Do you guys really think the cover is that well done, from an aesthetic/ artistic perspective?

:confused:

Controversy aside, I think they could've done a lot more/ better with this theme.
 
1069 said:
Do you guys really think the cover is that well done, from an aesthetic/ artistic perspective?

:confused:

Controversy aside, I think they could've done a lot more/ better with this theme.
Click to expand...

120px-Clovershoop.gif
 
TheNextEra said:
To really respond to this I would have to find out what you think the metaprinciples of liberalism and atheism are?
Click to expand...

Liberalism is, at its worst, extreme rationalism, universalism, egalitarianism, authoritarianism, contempt for anything settled, traditional, sacred or decent basically. Think Rousseau. Modern, Western Athiesm, imho, reinforces some of these.
 
Last edited:
EgoffTib said:
I don't cry a river when some uneducated Christian springs into a thread, says evolution never happened, the Bible is 100% historically accurate and that I need to repent for my sins. I just laugh.
Click to expand...

THat is one of the big beefs I have with Evagelicals - well at least the first two points anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure why a discussion about cover of a wankin' mag that was done up to look like Mary in a church has devolved into a discussion about faith vs. atheism.

It seems to me that the issue here is what can be construed as blasphemy to those who have faith. Obviously no atheist is going to be bothered by the cover for obvious reasons.

Now someone of faith, especially catholicism, could be legitimately offended by this. The issue becomes Is Playboy wrong in doing this, and should they be prevented from doing this.

Now, in a culture that values free expression, there is no way that one could argue that Playboy should be prevented form doing this. If you do not value free expression, then you can argue that this should be prevented. I think that is a losing argument because it is forcing your opinions down everyones throat to call for legal prevention of free expression.

As far as the inherent "wrongness" of the cover, it depends on Playboys goal and if the goal works. If they truly meant the cover to honor Mary, then they were wrong given the context of the magazine. They will offend those with faith more than they will please them with this depiction.

But if the goal was to sell issues of Playboy, then they may be "right" in doing so because controversy tends to sell magazines.

I don't think the cover is tasteless like the crucifix in a jar of piss "art" is tasteless, (and I don't really think anyone would say that it is that tasteless), but there are plenty of people who would and do find it to be tasteless. They are fully correct in having that opinion. I don;t think anyone has the right to tell them that they don't have the right to this opinion.

They also have the right to SHARE that opinion and call it "blasphemous" and "desperate" and try to "punish" Playboy through the free market with boycotts etc..

That is the beauty of a free society.

Turning this into a discussion about faith vs. atheism is just plain retarded.

This is an issue I have with a portion of the atheist population. They often take these issues that are VALID issues within the religious community and try and turn it into a "bash faith fest".

I implore my fellow atheists to look at this cover and ask themselves what damage is done to them by letting Catholics and people of faith protest it within their rights.

Seriously. Are we lessened by the fact that people of faith are able to use the free market for which it was designed?

Why turn this into a chance to impugn their beliefs?

I understand the fear of a slippery slope where we allow those who are offended to get their way on every issue, but the way to approach this is NOT to attack them for their feelings and beliefs.

Honestly, if you want to protest their protests, PURCHASE the magazine. Make it the best selling issue of Playboy of all time. Playboy will hear your protest where it counts, their bottom line. If they profit immensely on this issue, then you will have successfully made them realize that they should not cater to those who are offended, but instead they should try and do these things more often in the future.

Send a letter to Playboy stating that you have subscribed to their magazine specifically because of this cover. You would like to see more things like it in the future.

Don't bash people for their faith. There is no point to that.

That's my opinion on the issue. This is not a chance to promote atheism, nor is it the time to "defend" the lack of faith.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm not really sure why a discussion about cover of a wankin' mag that was done up to look like Mary in a church has devolved into a discussion about faith vs. atheism.

It seems to me that the issue here is what can be construed as blasphemy to those who have faith. Obviously no atheist is going to be bothered by the cover for obvious reasons.

Now someone of faith, especially catholicism, could be legitimately offended by this. The issue becomes Is Playboy wrong in doing this, and should they be prevented from doing this.

Now, in a culture that values free expression, there is no way that one could argue that Playboy should be prevented form doing this. If you do not value free expression, then you can argue that this should be prevented. I think that is a losing argument because it is forcing your opinions down everyones throat to call for legal prevention of free expression.

As far as the inherent "wrongness" of the cover, it depends on Playboys goal and if the goal works. If they truly meant the cover to honor Mary, then they were wrong given the context of the magazine. They will offend those with faith more than they will please them with this depiction.

But if the goal was to sell issues of Playboy, then they may be "right" in doing so because controversy tends to sell magazines.

I don't think the cover is tasteless like the crucifix in a jar of piss "art" is tasteless, (and I don't really think anyone would say that it is that tasteless), but there are plenty of people who would and do find it to be tasteless. They are fully correct in having that opinion. I don;t think anyone has the right to tell them that they don't have the right to this opinion.

They also have the right to SHARE that opinion and call it "blasphemous" and "desperate" and try to "punish" Playboy through the free market with boycotts etc..

That is the beauty of a free society.

Turning this into a discussion about faith vs. atheism is just plain retarded.

This is an issue I have with a portion of the atheist population. They often take these issues that are VALID issues within the religious community and try and turn it into a "bash faith fest".

I implore my fellow atheists to look at this cover and ask themselves what damage is done to them by letting Catholics and people of faith protest it within their rights.

Seriously. Are we lessened by the fact that people of faith are able to use the free market for which it was designed?

Why turn this into a chance to impugn their beliefs?

I understand the fear of a slippery slope where we allow those who are offended to get their way on every issue, but the way to approach this is NOT to attack them for their feelings and beliefs.

Honestly, if you want to protest their protests, PURCHASE the magazine. Make it the best selling issue of Playboy of all time. Playboy will hear your protest where it counts, their bottom line. If they profit immensely on this issue, then you will have successfully made them realize that they should not cater to those who are offended, but instead they should try and do these things more often in the future.

Send a letter to Playboy stating that you have subscribed to their magazine specifically because of this cover. You would like to see more things like it in the future.

Don't bash people for their faith. There is no point to that.

That's my opinion on the issue. This is not a chance to promote atheism, nor is it the time to "defend" the lack of faith.
Click to expand...
Well said.!:applaud

And for the record: The cover is not that bad--but it is also not very respectful of the Virgin Mother, or those who are devout. I'm certain Mary was beautiful--and at Christmas time, what I thought of when I saw her breast nearly exposed was Our Lady nursing and nurturing the Incarnation at His birth (but I'm a freak, so... :shrug:)
 
Felicity said:
I'm certain Mary was beautiful--and at Christmas time, what I thought of when I saw her breast nearly exposed was Our Lady nursing and nurturing the Incarnation at His birth (but I'm a freak, so... :shrug:)
Click to expand...

That's how I took the picture as well. I guess we're both freaks. :mrgreen:
 
Felicity said:
Well said.!:applaud

And for the record: The cover is not that bad--but it is also not very respectful of the Virgin Mother, or those who are devout. I'm certain Mary was beautiful--and at Christmas time, what I thought of when I saw her breast nearly exposed was Our Lady nursing and nurturing the Incarnation at His birth (but I'm a freak, so... :shrug:)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm I'm fairly impressed with your take on this image. The Vatican has a great collection of fine art and it looks like it has made an impression on you for the good..
 
Wessexman said:
Liberalism is, at its worst, extreme rationalism, universalism, egalitarianism, authoritarianism, contempt for anything settled, traditional, sacred or decent basically. Think Rousseau. Modern, Western Athiesm, imho, reinforces some of these.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that Liberalism is bad and atheists promote it?
 
DiAnna said:
Sheesh, CNN's Rick Sanchez (as usual) isn't conducting an interview. He's supposed to be a journalist soliciting the opinions of others, not taking over the "interview" by spouting his own opinions. His leading and provocative statements were commentary, not journalism.

Anyway, I'm not Catholic so it doesn't offend me. It seems the reaction of the Catholic community is a bit over the top, but then again I'm non-religious so I frequently feel the puffed-up blasphemy allegations of most religions are over the top.
Click to expand...

For me a wild guess is that the "mother of God" must be as good looking as that girl in the Playboy magazine...:lol:
 
BTW, Sanchez is a tool. He's offended by everything.


Just had to get that off of my chest.
 
1069 said:
Uh... it's the Mexican edition of Playboy. Why wouldn't the title be in Spanish? The whole dang magazine's in Spanish, because it's for sale in Mexico, where most people don't speak English.
Why does that- the language- seem particularly troubling to you?
Click to expand...

I detect some insensitivity and obtrusiveness or denseness here.
 
ludahai said:
Kind of funny because of all the PMs I get from people commenting exactly the opposite. .
Click to expand...

From the friends who've thanked your post? Why am I not shocked?

Your original comment gave me the best laugh I've had all year Ludahai. Thank you.

Do have a happy Christmas.
 
Playboy magazine needs to update its records before releasing such kind of controversial portraits. For to start, Jesus was black, Joseph was black, Mary was black...and new discoveries about some traditions have revealed that there weren't a cow and a donkey besides the child Jesus at his birth to warm him up but a giraffe and a hyena...:cool:
 
Urethra Franklin said:
You do or you wouldn't have bothered asking.
Click to expand...

No you can't draw that conclusion. I could easily have only cared if you were English from the question. I asked if you were English showing my distain for the EU despotism, therefore the obvious conclusion is I care if English people support it, this was what I meant.

If you're not English I don't care if you support it. I want England to withdra from EU tyranny but don't give a crap if the rest of Europe stay under it despotic thumb. It is quite simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom