Ты ярая ученица Якоба Шиффа и почитательница Сороса, Бронштейна (он же Троцкий) и ещё многих-многих других, кто уничтожил Нашу Российскую Империю и зверски лишил жизни Царя и его семью! Вы, те кто не смогли до конца стереть в порошок Нашу Отчизну тогда, пытались добить её с помощью марионетки Гитлера! Но и это не удалось сделать вам чёрным служителям вашего князя тьмы. Вы и в 91-м году не добились того, чего хотели - превращения России в ваш сырьевой придаток. И теперь вы, как и в 1905 году пытаетесь снова замутить революцию у нас через всяких обиженных педерастов, крича что-то о уже надоевшей вашей "свободе". НЕ ВЫЙДЕТ!
И лично к тебе, мадам:
Нет фригидных дам, есть неумелые мужики!
Найди того, кто даст тебе максимум удовлетворения, и перестань заниматься злом!
Удачи в Любви!

Ты ярая ученица Якоба Шиффа и почитательница Сороса, Бронштейна (он же Троцкий) и ещё многих-многих других, кто уничтожил Нашу Российскую Империю и зверски лишил жизни Царя и его семью! Вы, те кто не смогли до конца стереть в порошок Нашу Отчизну тогда, пытались добить её с помощью марионетки Гитлера! Но и это не удалось сделать вам чёрным служителям вашего князя тьмы. Вы и в 91-м году не добились того, чего хотели - превращения России в ваш сырьевой придаток. И теперь вы, как и в 1905 году пытаетесь снова замутить революцию у нас через всяких обиженных педерастов, крича что-то о уже надоевшей вашей "свободе". НЕ ВЫЙДЕТ!
И лично к тебе, мадам:
Нет фригидных дам, есть неумелые мужики!
Найди того, кто даст тебе максимум удовлетворения, и перестань заниматься злом!
Удачи в Любви!

Ты ярая ученица Якоба Шиффа и почитательница Сороса, Бронштейна (он же Троцкий) и ещё многих-многих других, кто уничтожил Нашу Российскую Империю и зверски лишил жизни Царя и его семью! Вы, те кто не смогли до конца стереть в порошок Нашу Отчизну тогда, пытались добить её с помощью марионетки Гитлера! Но и это не удалось сделать вам чёрным служителям вашего князя тьмы. Вы и в 91-м году не добились того, чего хотели - превращения России в ваш сырьевой придаток. И теперь вы, как и в 1905 году пытаетесь снова замутить революцию у нас через всяких обиженных педерастов, крича что-то о уже надоевшей вашей "свободе". НЕ ВЫЙДЕТ!
И лично к тебе, мадам:
Нет фригидных дам, есть неумелые мужики!
Найди того, кто даст тебе максимум удовлетворения, и перестань заниматься злом!
Удачи в Любви!

Susan,
so you atheist and don't understand how this art oppress faithful people, but what do you say if they exhibit some racist stuff? They say that "this is art and no body must be bothered". But must the "color" people be angry in that case and must they say & act in protest way?
Also could you please give an example how Russian Orthodox Church oppress other religion?
(sorry for bad english - it's not my native).

Jihadist

Are you still there on this thread? even though it is not on top yet anymore?

You make a lot of interesting comments. I feel that I can see things through your eyes that I cannot see with my own eyes.

You always hear the television comentators and writers talking about the American dream. But I have never had any sense of an American dream.

I grew up with the sense that the whole world is America, as far as you can imagine, in every direction, it is all America, and that the other places are so distant and remote as to be almost imaginary. Is that the American dream?

Even though the fathers of my generation travelled the world and fought in Europe and the Far East, they never spoke of these experiences. How could somone like myself imagine these places that were so foreign, that mention of them was almost tabooed?

When I went to France for the firt time, when I was 33, I could scarely imagine that I was in one of these foreign countries that I had always heard about. And when I went to the Alps, I could feel that over those mountains is "Italy" a country of foreigners, differnt from the French, and even though they were allies, I understood what it meant to know that the "other" country is just over those mountains.

And when I went to the Pyrenees, I had the same feeling about Spain; that just over thost hills, there is a different coutnry, where they speak a different language; it was a little creepy to realize this; then I understood a little better how all the rest of the world is.

Ooops, I flubbed.

That last post from me was supposed to be posted on the main thread.

Oh yeah, and you're al a bunch of fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists! ;)

It is an unfortunate situation, and it is not America's fault, but America must keep an extra special close eye now on it's muslim population and mosques. It must allow this mosque, to maintain it's own ideals, but it must keep a close eye on it as well as all mosques.

America should do so with as much respect and as little obstruction as possible. But it must do this. And this is not racial profiling. This is ideological profiling and it is wise not bigoted.

Freedom of religion does not include freedom from being looked upon as suspicious if your beliefs are say, Charlie Manson's beliefs, or Mohammed's beliefs.

Hello,

If and when the devil wreck my aircon for a taste of hell in this hot and humid climate, I can perhaps, count on you to help me fix it.

"It certainly is offensive to those who see it as an act against America..."

"Not necessarily; I see it as an act of impotence."

- I have to ask those associated with the Tea Party for their views too then, for the diversity of views on what is offensive or otherwise for Americans.

------------------------------------------

"...and what it stood for."

"Um... "what it *stood* for"?
Do you know something that I don't?"

- Ah, pardon my English grammar. What America stands for is democracy, human rights, equal rights, fundamental rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc according to American bloggers in On Faith who argued on what those means and entails, including the right to bear arms and the right of women to have abortions.

What do "America" stands for, for you? When, how do the "American Dream" and "American Exceptionalism" comes in?

"It certainly is offensive to those who see it as an act against America..."

Not necessarily; I see it as an act of impotence.

"...and what it stood for."

Um... "what it *stood* for"?

Do you know something that I don't?

No one was asked to move to another country. People were told that IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR FEELINGS PROTECTED, they would need to move to another country because this country is not going to protect their feelings.

Americans protesting such art would be exercising their freedom of speech. But if they were calling for this art to be banned by the government because it offended them, they would be trying to stop freedom of speech.

"Or will they be deem to be patriots?"

They would be deemed patriots by some and idiots by others, but no one would force them to leave the country.

Posted by: timmy2

*******************************************

Thanks Timmy2,

That is clearer.

There are, of course, groups and governments which may try for "incitement to hatred" defence of, and counter-offence against, including asking for bans, taking to court, on matters they deem "sensitive" and "offensive". I'm talking not just about Russia but several other goverments and groups, mostly in developing countries.

Braying "(Name the country) Love it or leave it!" during differences of views in public discourse on domestic issues is dismaying, and mostly from self-designated and self-styled "patriots/nationalists".

Jihadist

"Would Americans who are offended by such art and said so, protested such art, be asked to move to another country?"

No one was asked to move to another country. People were told that IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR FEELINGS PROTECTED, they would need to move to another country because this country is not going to protect their feelings.

Americans protesting such art would be exercising their freedom of speech. But if they were calling for this art to be banned by the government because it offended them, they would be trying to stop freedom of speech.

"Or will they be deem to be patriots?"

They would be deemed patriots by some and idiots by others, but no one would force them to leave the country.

Defamation, libel, and slander are not the same as 'offending.'

Those are all forms of malicious lies meant to harm someone. While they may also often be 'offensive' that's not why they're actionable crimes.

It may offend some, if you, say, burn Uncle Sam in effigy, but it's not libellous or slanderous or defamatory.

- APaganplace

******************************************

Hello APaganplace, :)

Long time no see too. Good to see you again.

McCarthy did say every word Hellman wrote is a "lie", including "and" and "the". Ouch!

If that is not "offensive", which also certainly mean aggressive and odious among other meanings of that word, and has indeed deeply offended Hellman, on top of McCarthy's words being slanderous and defamatory, I don't know what is.

As for burning Uncle Sam's effigy or the American flag, perhaps it is not libellous or slanderous, but it does seem defamatory, inflammatory and provocative whether by design by those who did so, or as a fall-out of protests. It certainly is offensive to those who see it as an act against America and what it stood for.

Jihadist: (Hi, btw. LTNS. :) )

""Mary McCarthy was offended by something about Lillian Hellman. She made some remarks deemed offensive by Hellman. McCarthty was sued by Hellman. Not too sure if it was for defamation, for libel, for slander, or all three""

Defamation, libel, and slander are not the same as 'offending.'

Those are all forms of malicious lies meant to harm someone. While they may also often be 'offensive' that's not why they're actionable crimes.

It may offend some, if you, say, burn Uncle Sam in effigy, but it's not libellous or slanderous or defamatory.

"Do you think people have the right not to be offended?"

"No they do not. That is how it works in countries with free speech. If you want the right to no be offended, you need to move to a country with a dictator who thinks exactly like you."

******************************************

I am sure I am not sure about that.

Everyone is certainly offended about something or the other with varying degrees of feelings of being offended.

Mary McCarthy was offended by something about Lillian Hellman. She made some remarks deemed offensive by Hellman. McCarthty was sued by Hellman. Not too sure if it was for defamation, for libel, for slander, or all three.

Supposedly, there was art relating to the Founding Fathers of the US. Say, "Piss Washington" or dung piled on Jefferson. Would Americans who are offended by such art and said so, protested such art, be asked to move to another country? Or will they be deem to be patriots?

Most probably, there will be a great debate on freedom of expression, freedom of speech on it. And surely those who opposed such as as much freedom of speech and freedom of expression to protest such art which, incidentally its creators did to cause a public stir and debate.

W H O - W A N T'S - TO - BE - A - C H R i S t I A n; Or a Russian Orthodoxy [Fish] at that?

WHO is a Xrstian? WHAT is a Christian?

WHO is a JU? or What is a JEW?

WHO is a HINDu? What is a Hindutvami?

WHO is a BUDDHISTami? What is a BUddha?

WHO is a MORMOM? What is a Mormopn?

WHO is a ISHMAELi? or What is a ESAUi?

Behold: The Most "SUPERSTUPiDSTITIOUS" Humans (walking Animals, w/Holyi Frontal-Lobes) On EARTH! Sooo, let' Us Set aside Richard Dawkin's "Greatest Show On Earth" and Come Together Now.

pre-ApocalypticOFF Human's [unlike Us HUUMATE(s), Apocalyptic-ON's] still need old-time 'God(s)-Fix's to function in/on a REAL sobering [Bless'th; NOt Sin/Curs'th) futuristic Planet.

Russ's Old-time Religion is still "The OPIuM OF THe PEOPLE(s)"; Today; Even though Today's Bolsheviki's (Commies Turned Capitalists?) feign Rabbi' Jesus's & Mass Murderer Paul/Sauls & Josephus's Religion.

Instead of Moving Forward; for Humanity Sake; The Russkie's, w/out their Brewski's, are becoming very 'SuperStupidStitious" backward thinkers who posses Atomic-Bombs the World Over via 140, Million smart Oss's who think they have G-D (if any) on Their Side?

Note: Even though Russ Orthodox Choich's now smell like a rose; compared to their Rival's; Vatican-R.C.C. et al; That the "EUCHARiST" Consuming, ex-Commy turned Russ-Xrstiano/a's,

Eat/Swallow "Rabbi JESUS Flesh" (aka Cannibalism), and also Consume "Rabbi Jessus's Blood" (aka Vampirism) more than Ever; Makes Them That More Dangerous, the World Over!

"REligious Jealousy Psychosis" is Real as the Commy-Scare & or the Ishlami-Scare/Creep of Today! And "Pre-Apocvalyptic Syndrome"s will usher-in the "Nuclear Holocaust"!

All old-time Religion (god(s)) Systems are Poison. Especially their "Double/Triple Standards Psychology" [Psychosis]. "O' Those Russian"s!

Note: The ex-comm Commradi Ruski's, mit da Bruskie's, or not, art mostly 'Rushin' to go No-where! O' Carl Mark! O' Spinoza! etal!

It gets basically no press, but in the Pagan community we hear deeply worrisome things about oppressions against Pagans and traditional aboriginals under all this new Church influence.

It's the *lack* of information that most bothers me.

Russia is receiving very little publicity these days, because, in typically American fashion, we tend not to be interested in a foreign country unless it is perceived as a powerful threat.
---------------------------------------
When I was a kid, the Soviet Union was about 6% of the world's population; Russia today is about 2% of it. I don't really know enough about the cultural context of France or Syria to understand what it means for them to bar certain Islamic clothing. Or for Russia to prescribe fines for mocking the church with bad art.

"...the REAL icons,..."

This sounds like an oxymoron.

I remember the phrase uttered by the peasant woman in the 60th regarding the poetry of one of the dissident poets of Russia. Eventually he became a Nobel prize winner))
Her famous phrase was, "I haven't read anything Brodsky had written, but I condemn him".
The same is happening here. Most of the readers "condemn" Russia on principle.
The exhibition in question was not all about Christ and Coca-Cola. It was obscene, it was using verbal obscenities toward the religion, visitors and the icons, it was desecrating the REAL icons, it was about houliganism, masqearading itself under the guise of free art. The Jewish Counsil of Russia, and Rabbi E.Kogan, its leader, condemned the exhibition in the open letter.

"Do you think people have the right not to be offended?"

No they do not. That is how it works in countries with free speech. If you want the right to no be offended, you need to move to a country with a dictator who thinks exactly like you.

Posted by: TIMMY2
----------------------------------------

HEY! Timmy and I agree on something!

"Do you think people have the right not to be offended?"

No they do not. That is how it works in countries with free speech. If you want the right to no be offended, you need to move to a country with a dictator who thinks exactly like you.

Do you think people have the right not to be offended?
---------------------------------------

This is an extremely important question in the current environment in the USA. When well-intentioned advocates for civil rights groups sought a framework within which to treat calling a person the n- or b-words as something not necessarily protected from free speech principals, they came upon "offensiveness" as their guideline. It didn't take long, of course, for the right not to be offended to spread from name-calling designed to hurt into the statement of opinions that contracts the hearer's worldview.

The On Faith board contains a report offensive comment link on every post, which is generally effective at removing swear words, contentless name-calling, and pictures of fish. Sometimes, though, it's used to remove opinions to what a reader violently objects. I was taken down for quoting Sam Harris that Mormonism is "Christianity plus some additional rather stupid ideas."

Remember when Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell proclaimed April to be Confederate History Month, but omitted any discussion of slavery? I was taken down from a commenting board for writing "McDonnell's proclamation is silly. To observe Confederate History Month without considering slavery would be like celebrating African-American history month without examining the reasons for fatherlessness and crime."

Can you tell me a sense in which that's offensive, other than being contrary to the socio-political interests of a protected group?

Do you think people have the right not to be offended? If yes, would such a right also extend to atheists, Islamic terrorists, flat-earthers?

*******************************************

I am offended. I am taking exception as a Flat-earther.

The world is flat. I have empirical and scientific proof throughout history of many who have either been close to the edge, or has fallen off the edge into an abyss.

It is the Round-earthers who want to round up and herd everyone into groups and pigeon holes.

Even Thomas Friedman is a Flat-earther. He is a metaphorical, cafetaria, cherry picking sort of Flat-earther. I am the fundamentalist sort of Flat-earther.

Anymore religious icon art sold at Arbat?

Or it is now full of post-religious art, post-Soviet art, bash neo-Russia art?

"Bashing" the state sometimes also mean bashing the secular and religious powers that be in a state which want to determine and decide on what we can see, do, read, think.

Unfortunately the state, yielding to the pressures of, or in agreement with with the majority ethnic or religious group can be powerful regardless of it even being "officially" a "secular" state.

Art is obviously also a channel for dissent. But don't ask me why while Michelangelo is not too, too happy with the Church, his doodlings on the ceiling of Sistine Chapel is magnificent.

Goodness gracious me!

I do have reflective and unreflective reactions to technical flubs I myself cause and which caused by others.

Not not to mention too, my too many reflective in reactions and unreflective in form and content posts towards the posts by others.

This is not just high art, or low art, or middle brow Soviet art or Russian art. Just ruffled brows artlessly determining what is provocative or offensive to us.

Therefore, we seek to be provoked, offended, insulted, shocked, dismayed, disgusted. Therefore we seek to criticise, vilify, ridicule, ban...

On grounds of (pick one or pick all):

(a) it makes no sense all those juxtaposition of elements

(b) it is tasteless and horrendous in concept and execution

(c) it does not contribute towards civilisation as we know it with half-baked ideas being technically and artistically badly done

(d) it offended political, ethnic, religious sensitivies and will disrupt public peace and unravel the quilted national fabric

(e) I know what I like and I don't like it!
Art's for art's sake?! What in the world does that mean???

In light of the history of extreme persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia/the former USSR, you don't think it's in poor taste, as a public atheist, to be opposed to the Russian Orthodox seeking to halt cruel and sacreligious mockery of a kind that was probably unheard of before the revolution, and ubiquitous under the Communists, who had an official agenda to eliminate religion? In Germany, there are restrictions on Naziism, which are deemed to be for the good of the nation. Why not certain protections in Russia, against this kind of nasty anti-religious speech? Truly, the examples you cite are very offensive. elizdelphi

I'm really interested just what "restrictions" you'd like to see placed on anti-religious speech. Care to specify? Do you think people have the right not to be offended? If yes, would such a right also extend to atheists, Islamic terrorists, flat-earthers?

What's wrong? Two old stupid cads were prosecuted for public abusing of a social group and condemned to pay a fine. The terrible "Orthodox nationalists" merely don't exist in reality, and "Chechens and other Moslims" are the main sacred cows for the Russian government.

"Someone might care"

Oh my goodness gracious!

"No one cares about the flub."

Someone might care.

"It's your reflexive reaction to your readers that you should be embarrassed by."

My goodness!

"Grow up."

Oh, my goodness gracious!

"Ever heard of a technical mistake made by someone else on a Web site? No?"

No one cares about the flub. It's your reflexive reaction to your readers that you should be embarrassed by. Grow up.

orthodox juchristianity is the back ground of both,

1-secular communist russia.
2-secular captialist USA.

Secular russia+eastern europ separated her self from the church and claimed to mankind that communism is the way the truth and life?

secular america+western europ separated her self from the church and claimed to mankind that capitalism is the way the truth and life?

the only difference is ,
secular russia crushed and shut the religion mouth and practice.

secular usa said ,
look you people by the people and for the people ,you can shout as hi as you like your religion voice and acts but keep it inside the church box ,keep it separated from the state.!!!!

marvlous picture isnt??

what is mising in the above picture?

monk grigori rasputin,
saint georgio di democraz,
and nero who sat there on booz watching rome burning .

I miss the peep shows - and, I used to be a panhandler - so I may a little biased...

Posted by: PSolus

******************************************

:)

That was you at Times Square!?

I am so terribly sorry I did not give you a quarter for you to enjoy a peep show.

A good weekend to you, PSolus. Don't be frightening tourists from Muncie, Indiana, visiting New York lost in Times Square.

"Speaking of St. Rudy of the First Amendment, does anyone think Times Square was better full of peep shows and panhandlers, or does there come a point where ten thousand people's quality of life supersedes the right to ask for change without bathing for a month?"

I miss the peep shows - and, I used to be a panhandler - so I may a little biased...

Speaking of St. Rudy of the First Amendment, does anyone think Times Square was better full of peep shows and panhandlers, or does there come a point where ten thousand people's quality of life supersedes the right to ask for change without bathing for a month?

Virgin Mary covered with dried elephant dung?

What did she do to deserve that?

Too bad artists can't do such for living persons who certainly deserved to be piled with dung to represent them in their own dung. They'd get sued for defamation and slander.

DILD: googled Chechen Marilyn, found a website with it, saved the picture, and am now sending it to friends.

------------------------------------------

Is that even a woman?

If the pieces on that site are representative of the whole show, it should have been shut down for sucking.

Posted by: WmarkW

******************************************

Chechen Marilyn's pic is not new has been passed around the net here.

It is a photo of a female suicide bomber with her hijab pulled by the sides exposing her spiky heel and stockings showing skulls and crossed bones.

There is an "Orthodoxy or Death" thing going on in Russia. Among their symbols are skulls and crosses.

The Palin post will be back Tuesday, when I'm finished writing it. Ever heard of a technical mistake made by someone else on a Web site? No?

In Russia, a person could get arrested for showing a picture of Jesus drinking a coke at the last supper, and the readers of this blog aree with that?

Wow; that is a little scarey.

Sounds a little like Iran.

Susan,

You flubbed again and now people wondering why the latest article disappeared are conspiracy theorists? Do you always try to save face on your flubs with slanderous insults to your readers?

I think you should cool your jets or go back to your self imposed mandate of not commenting on the comments.

Should jokes about bar mitzvahs be prohibited due to the Holocaust?

Oh Susan,

Why do I still defend you most times? For someone who does not respond to comments here as a rule, it is very disappointing to see that you used a rare exception to slander me by insinuating that I called anyone "stupid." Hopefully you've had some time to peruse a dictionary since then and perhaps now you know the difference between thinking lucidly and being stupid.

People who have been indoctrinated since infancy to believe that the Pope is the earthly representative of the God to whom they pray for their food every night , do not think lucidly on church matters. For making this statement, I am singled out as a fundamentalist? Or was it because I pointed out your error in making the statement "If I were a believing Catholic I would take the logical position of X." I didn't mean it in a nasty way, I was simply pointing out a little flub in logic. You're not perfect and no one expects you to be.

As for fundamentalists, I most certainly am one when it comes to things like free speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights for women, all races, and for all sexual orientations. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a fundamentalist, it's about what you are a fundamentalist about and why, that matters.

As for my "atheism" I am not a fundamentalist. That there is no God is not a fundamental belief for me. It is an evidence and logic based belief that remains open to change with new evidence. But for now, I assert it as confidently as I assert that there are no magic dragons.

In the brief time that the Palin thread was up, perhaps you noticed that another poster accused you of calling religious people "stupid" when in fact all you did was talk about their education level. Perhaps now you know how slander feels and perhaps you will smarten up in the future. I thought it was faux Susan who owed me an apology but it is you.

I will probably still defend you when I think you are right, and point out when I think you flub one.

And where did the Palin thread go?

For all you conspiracy theorists out there, the Palin piece was accidentally published before it was finished. That's all. I "unpublished" it for a few days to finish what I started.

And no, I don't think it's in poor taste to criticize the Orthodox Church for trying to re-establish its old, pre-Bolshevik relationship with the state. I realize that some of you people would love to have a church here that could exert the same power over the U.S. government.

The persecution the Orthodox Church endured during the Soviet era (mainly while Stalin was still alive) is no justification for its attempt to regain its old power (and, by the way, suppress other religions). What the ultra-Orthodox want to do now is imprison people who disagree with them. I don't see any difference between this episode and the attempt of radical Muslims to punish those responsible for the satirical Danish cartoons. But if Christians want to send people to jail for offending them, that's perfectly OK

As for the quality of the art, that is quite irrelevant. As I believe I mentioned in my essay, one of the most effective ways to arouse interest in uninteresting art is to try to censor it.

Indeed, no criticism of the Orthodox Church was permitted under the Tsars, just as no criticism of Communist ideology was permitted in the Soviet Union. My point exactly.

You are certainly spirited, but your comments on linking the Orthodox Church of Russia to the communist regime of the 20 th century is in very poor taste. As for the "artwork", um...was that even considered artwork?

In light of the history of extreme persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia/the former USSR, you don't think it's in poor taste, as a public atheist, to be opposed to the Russian Orthodox seeking to halt cruel and sacreligious mockery of a kind that was probably unheard of before the revolution, and ubiquitous under the Communists, who had an official agenda to eliminate religion? In Germany, there are restrictions on Naziism, which are deemed to be for the good of the nation. Why not certain protections in Russia, against this kind of nasty anti-religious speech? Truly, the examples you cite are very offensive.

The former communist countries have been through an incredible amount, including the systematic, and often extremely brutal efforts of atheistic communists to eradicate religion.

From Wikipedia:
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.

"Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.

"The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. The widespread persecution and internecine disputes within the church hierarchy lead to the seat of Patriarch of Moscow being vacant from 1925-1943.

"After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Soviet_Union_and_Warsaw_Pact_Countries

Big deal: religiously offensive pictures were censored. But Jacoby spins this incident into a campaign against political dissent, tarred with "ultra-nationalism" and anti-Semitism.

What if those pictures were racially offensive? What if they displayed Little Black Sambo eating watermelon or…use your imagination. Would Jacoby by bothered by their being censored?

Laws against the display of "offensive nuisances" in public places don't per se restrict political dissent. We have laws against public nudity and against dumping rubbish in your front yard simply because such sights are disruptive and offend people. So what?

Jacoby's article is just another expression of fashionable anti-religious prejudice.

Indeed, as long as a religion has no armies the believers will coo about tolerance. Watch how fast they forget to be tolerant and turn their religious law into secular law when they acquire power. The hypocrisy would be laughable if the result wasn't so frightening.

DILD: googled Chechen Marilyn, found a website with it, saved the picture, and am now sending it to friends.
------------------------------------------

Is that even a woman?
If the pieces on that site are representative of the whole show, it should have been shut down for sucking.

Where did the piece on Bristol Palin go? Was it pulled? Editors, please explain.

One of Susan's remarks above reminds me of a comment she made at a conference I saw on YouTube, about author Anne Rice's conversion to Christianity.

After spending a career writing about people who want to drink your blood, Rice developed an interest in someone who wants you to drink his.

I googled Chechen Marilyn, found a website with it, saved the picture, and am now sending it to friends.

Actually, it is a funny idea, but the picture is not really that good. I think some creative person out there could make a much better, much funnier one.

Hierarchies have to legitimize their rule to the masses. Justifications include consent of the people, dictatorship of the proletariat, or the great chain of being with the ruler at the top, closer to God.

With such limited selections available, it isn't surprising that the latter is coming forward again. It's worked in the past.

The real head scratcher is what trying to figure out the Chinese leadership is using. I think it must be a novel one. "We deliver the goods."

We should get the Palin column on Tuesday.
I think Susan knows she gets fewer hits on Fridays than Tuesdays, so we get the material with less general interest, like the summer reading list and Dorothy Height.

What happened to the piece on the Palins???? It's gone.