Wednesday, February 18, 2009

And on the other hand, Bishop Henry ...


Shorter Bishop and raving loon Fred Henry: "As a democratic society, we have a moral obligation to allow all points of view, even the ones that might offend us and ... HOLY FUCKING MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, JESUS H. CHRIST ON A COCKSUCKING STICK, YOU CAN'T PUBLISH THAT!!!!!"

4 comments:

sooey said...

Just think, these same cretinous sorts are running our government.

Ti-Guy said...

Usual false equivalences from our low-IQ media:

"To that end, though, I would challenge those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the likes of Syed Soharwardy and Mohamed Elmasry to now step forward and stand with Bishop Fred Henry.

After all, Soharwardy was "offended" by Ezra Levant's decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons, Elmasry was "offended" by Mark Steyn's writings. Well, another religious leader is "offended" and the absence of support is conspicuous."

I've no doubt in my mind that the intention of Levant and Steyn was not just to offend, but to incite hatred of Muslims (both have a documented record of hating minorities). I consider motivation paramount. If the atheist ad campaign communicated the message that religion is a immorality-fueling delusion and that people who raise their children in a religious environment are committing child abuse, the intention here clearly would be to offend. So, on the merits of content alone (which indicates motivation), I feel no obligation to support Fred Henry.

Randall said...

Yes, we should be free to talk about when life begins and whether our laws should protect the unborn. Yes, there are those who are "offended" by such questions and prefer that they not be asked.

Who are these people who are "offended by such questions"? Cause everyone I've ever heard just thinks they're really, really stupid questions.

sooey said...

Gosh, Ti-Guy, if atheists communicated the message that religion is an immorality-fueling delusion what would there be left for religious leaders to communicate.