Replies

I’m no mind reader, but I doubt Parker and Stone gave a passing thought to the Virgin Mary’s womb. As I recall, the plot's primary message was to counter the popular claim that alcoholism is a disease. A secondary message was to lampoon the chasers of miraculous iconic fluids, in this case Stan’s dad seeking divine help for his supposed disease that he was told is bigger than himself. The anal blood from the VM just looked like the most absurd fluid to use to ridicule the miracle groupies, and Stan’s dad. There’s no evidence of malice toward the VM, the immaculate conception or God at all.

But you have another opinion, probably from your experiences and sensitivity to attacks on your faith. It also varies from that in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you assume that has changed over time. Finally, you say that judges are unable to make distinctions that theologians could make. All that’s evidence for my first claim to you, that blasphemy is subjective, or at least ambiguous.

Personally, I think that the term blasphemy is reduced to triviality by the standards you’ve expressed, like how the impact of racism charges are reduced by activists leveraging it for maximum advantage. And I think making blasphemy illegal would be profoundly anti-American (another subjective term).

The anal blood from the VM just looked like the most absurd fluid to use to ridicule the miracle groupies, and Stan’s dad.

To use an icon of the Virgin Mary to ridicule so-called "miracle groupies" is disrespectful.

Many hold sacred and blessed the Virgin Mary. Many hold the icons of the Virgin Mary in similar regard.

Personally, I would never use the icon of the Virgin Mary as a prop to ridicule anybody or anybodies faith. It debases what people hold sacred, the Virgin Mary the Mother of God. To do to her icon what is described above is disrespectful.

As far as those who would believe that they see tears or blood from a sacred icon, It all comes down to their faith and their need or willingness to faithfully believe in a miracle.

But how are they different than most. Most people do have a religious faith. Many people on this thread have their own faith and their own beliefs that they hold sacred, even if they don't look for bleeding and crying icons.

But faith by it's definition is something that can not be proved. So I'm having a hard time seeing why you think that one person's nonviolent religious faith is worthy of ridicule, while the religious faith of others is not.

Why don't you describe what is so bloody different about the faith in "miracles" of a bleeding Mother Mary icon and the religious faith of others.

Most terms are vague from a legal perspective until the courts define them. America lived with censorship since its inception till the fifties; somehow I think it will survive reinstatement of censorship.

Till then, organizations like Catholic League will use the free speech and free market approach to get rid at least of most egregious violations of decency.