Meet the new Tolerance

[BT]

I saw this sticker on a rear window today.

[sirs]

Where's the mass Christian riots? 

[Brassmask]

Your cartoon is equal in every single way to Phelps' God Hates Fags signs.

[BT]

Thank you for seeing my point.

Intolerance comes in many forms from many directions. One instance does not cancel nor excuse the other.

[Mucho]

I saw this sticker on a rear window today.

Obviously created by a Xtian in order to claim victimhood or worse.

[BT]

Of course.

Just like painting swastikas on temple walls is obviously an attempt by the Jews to claim victimhood.

And those Negroes with the burning crosses, what's with that?

[gipper]

There are some dimensions to this issue which are being overlooked. First, parodies, even directly disrespectful ones, are much more acceptable when aimed at majorities or those securely in power. In this sense, the analogy to gay jokes and such breaks down. This acceptability stems from the veritable duty to criticize those in power for a host of reasons, which can be summarized as keeping them honest. Second, another aspect overlooked is any detail whatsoever about the guy who displayed the decal. It seems to me, as likely as not, that the person MAY be a disaffected Christian in the process of working out his demons. In this sense, I contend, aside from political speech, this type of communication is prized under our First-Amendment system. Thus, on this level, the displayer enjoys the added protection of being a seeker through relevant, expressive behavior, and not a hate-monger.

[BT]

Gipper,

Your post, though well written, is off the mark. Disrespect for the religious beliefs of others flies in the face of all that the first amendment implies. It has nothing to do with numbers or majority or power. It has to do with decency and respect for the "other"


And if it matters, our sticker enthusiast also had a darwin fish prominently displayed on his rear bumper.

[MissusDe]

In this sense, I contend, aside from political speech, this type of communication is prized under our First-Amendment system. Thus, on this level, the displayer enjoys the added protection of being a seeker through relevant, expressive behavior, and not a hate-monger.

The displayer also is violating copyright laws.

"Bill Watterson had, and still has, very strong anti-merchandising views when it comes to Calvin and Hobbes. A couple of calendars and a children's textbook were published, but after that, the only Calvin and Hobbes material that Watterson would allow were the comic books itself.

However, with a huge fan base desperate to get satisfy their Calvin and Hobbes cravings, it is of little surprise that commercial operators stepped in to produce bootleg merchandise. Refer to the merchandising page for more information.

The most popular of these bootleg merchandise was the Calvin and Hobbes bumper stickers and windows decals. And of these bumper stickers, the most requested one was the various versions showing Calvin urinating on a car logo. For the record, Watterson never drew a strip that featured Calvin urinating. Naturally, Universal Press Syndicate took a dim view of these stickers and threatened to sue sticker makers alleging infringement of copyright and trademark.

Many sticker makers simply ignore the threat whilst others, in a token effort, simply redrew the image to feature a similar, but more generic looking boy. A search of the Net will list several printers who sell Calvin and Hobbes stickers.

These images are included on this site because they are part of the history of Calvin and Hobbes. However, remember that Universal Press Syndicate nor Bill Watterson authorise the use of Calvin and Hobbes for these purposes."

http://www.nivmedia.com/calvin/bumpersticker.php

[Plane]

There are some dimensions to this issue which are being overlooked. First, parodies, even directly disrespectful ones, are much more acceptable when aimed at majorities or those securely in power. In this sense, the analogy to gay jokes and such breaks down. This acceptability stems from the veritable duty to criticize those in power for a host of reasons, which can be summarized as keeping them honest. Second, another aspect overlooked is any detail whatsoever about the guy who displayed the decal. It seems to me, as likely as not, that the person MAY be a disaffected Christian in the process of working out his demons. In this sense, I contend, aside from political speech, this type of communication is prized under our First-Amendment system. Thus, on this level, the displayer enjoys the added protection of being a seeker through relevant, expressive behavior, and not a hate-monger.

I disagree that they are more acceptable when directed at majoritys , or partys in power.

Rude is rude, it is not nice to be rude to Paris Hilton  and mean to be rude to her maid , it is equivilent .

Personal respect is twards a person ,not a station nor a title.

A Judge may demand respect , a rich guy might buy some and a guy with a  gun might threaten you to be respected , but these are a lesser sort of respect than the respect that human beings owe to one another.

Of course I do respect the right of this guy to speak disrespectfully on his bumper , I want to have the same right myself.

[Mucho]

Of course.

Just like painting swastikas on temple walls is obviously an attempt by the Jews to claim victimhood.

And those Negroes with the burning crosses, what's with that?

Those folks really were minority victims . Xtian is the power majority who only want to claim victimhood for themselves as well .

[Plane]

Of course.

Just like painting swastikas on temple walls is obviously an attempt by the Jews to claim victimhood.

And those Negroes with the burning crosses, what's with that?

Those folks really were minority victims . Xtian is the power majority who only want to claim victimhood for themselves as well .

They are victims when they are attacked , elese what would "victim " ever mean?

[_JS]

Perhaps the difference here is that we are called to love this person and pray for him or her.

The Life of Brian was a parody, and damn funny at that. If this is a pardoy, it is certainly low brow!

[Mucho]

Of course.

Just like painting swastikas on temple walls is obviously an attempt by the Jews to claim victimhood.

And those Negroes with the burning crosses, what's with that?

Those folks really were minority victims . Xtian is the power majority who only want to claim victimhood for themselves as well .

They are victims when they are attacked , elese what would "victim " ever mean?

They are feigning the attack in order to gain sympathy and steal the last thing denied themie victimhood. The Xtians in here have already proven they have no shame

[_JS]

They are feigning the attack in order to gain sympathy and steal the last thing denied themie victimhood. The Xtians in here have already proven they have no shame

That is unfair.

The Christians in here are a diverse group, including Lanya and myself who are typically placed on the political left, Prince - who has a diverse grouping of Libertarian views, and Plane, Professor and others who have more right wing political views (apologies on anyone I left out and on the weaknesses of the traditional spectrum).

So, I think your stereotyping is grossly impractical.