[WikiEN-l] Re: Why is 'CrucifiedChrist' less offensive than a pun on oral sex?

Wed Jan 29 00:19:36 UTC 2003

Brion Vibber wrote:

>Offense is only taken, not given. There is no objective measure of
>offensiveness that I can perform; actual reactions and quanitifable
>results as to how the project is affected are much more convincing to
>me.

This is a good point. There's no way of knowing simply from the 
phrase "Crucified Christ" whether the speaker means it as a joke or 
as some sort of actual statement of religious belief.

Mormons actually regard the crucifix itself as offensive. They argue 
that using it as a religious symbol is tantamount to worshipping the 
weapon used to murder Christ. Obviously, most traditional Christian 
religions don't share this attitude, but it has a certain logic to it.

I remember taking a Japanese Buddhist on a visit to a Catholic church 
once. She walked around the chapel, looking at the depictions of the 
stations of the cross, with Jesus dragging the crucifix and being 
tortured with his crown of thorns and blood dripping down his 
forehead. I don't know if she was "offended," exactly, but she 
certainly found it scary.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------