Comments on: The First Dog/divine hand relief kerfuffle continues http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/06/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups-31/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: daveliberts http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/06/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups-31/#comment-30526 daveliberts Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:35:45 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/06/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups-31/#comment-30526 I'd like to thank Michael Byrne and Paul Gilchrist for proving my points (my letter, Friday 3 July). It turns out it is offensive to Christians to have the words "hand-job" anywhere near the word "Jesus", irrespective of the context, because it just is. Why Paul goes on to quote Monty Python is beyond me, because they were offensive to Christians for exactly the same non-reason (ie they weren't actually offensive but they got close to the bone so that made them offensive in the eyes of many Christians). And Paul, nowhere was my letter derogatory towards Christianity, as you accuse, just Christians, and anyone else who wants to join in claiming that a cartoon they fully admit to not having even seen is offensive. I've never seen First Dog take an 'anti-Christianity' position on anything, but a lot of readers seem to want to find anti-Christianity messages in this wonderful little cartoon. That's their choice, I guess. It's when so many of them take the next step and use this to pronounce how intolerant other major religions are (as they have done every time FDOTM has referred to any aspect of Christianity) that I get riled. I’d like to thank Michael Byrne and Paul Gilchrist for proving my points (my letter, Friday 3 July). It turns out it is offensive to Christians to have the words “hand-job” anywhere near the word “Jesus”, irrespective of the context, because it just is. Why Paul goes on to quote Monty Python is beyond me, because they were offensive to Christians for exactly the same non-reason (ie they weren’t actually offensive but they got close to the bone so that made them offensive in the eyes of many Christians). And Paul, nowhere was my letter derogatory towards Christianity, as you accuse, just Christians, and anyone else who wants to join in claiming that a cartoon they fully admit to not having even seen is offensive.

I’ve never seen First Dog take an ‘anti-Christianity’ position on anything, but a lot of readers seem to want to find anti-Christianity messages in this wonderful little cartoon. That’s their choice, I guess. It’s when so many of them take the next step and use this to pronounce how intolerant other major religions are (as they have done every time FDOTM has referred to any aspect of Christianity) that I get riled.

]]>