Well. The image that I chose for today’s caption contest was far more provocative of comments than I certainly expected it to be.
Perhaps if I had directly attacked the image of Bill Clinton superimposed over an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (e.g., "How outrageous!"), rather than satirize the image as I did (e.g., "St. Billary of Hope"), my intent would have been better understood. My intent, to make it clear, was not to hold up the image for approval but to inspire more humorous satire.
I don’t think the posting of the image for purposes of taking jabs at it was blasphemous or sacrilegious, or I certainly would not have posted such an image on Jimmy’s blog. It was edgy, yes. It was an example of the religious overtones of American politics, yes. One could even say that such parody skirts poor taste. But poor taste is not the same thing as blasphemy or sacrilege, which are grave matter.
In any event, the image did offend the sensibilities of the readers here at JimmyAkin.org, something that I did not intend and for which I apologize.
Mea culpa.
Don’t like it.
No kidding. It would bother me less if it weren’t so blasphemous, i.e., if it weren’t Bill Clinton’s head superimposed on an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
I agree with Publius.
Michelle,
I know this is supposed to be humor, but this is….
well, not good.
reminds me of the Martin Luther King icon my parents sent me. Gak.
“Hey Johnny, who’s that hot chick down there with you and maw? Get her number. I’ll be back in three days.”
(Saying a rosary in penance already…)
I agree with the first four posters. Not worthy of a caption contest.
Take it down already. This is in really, really, really, really, really bad taste. Possibly sinful, to boot.
I have to agree with several of the comments above. Looking at this picture literally made me sick to my stomach. 🙂
In Michelle’s defense, some individuals *did* treat Clinton as a Messianic figure, and it’s fair to point that out.
boycott the blog!
I find it interesting how I get blasted by y’all on this blog because of my supposed “lack” of humour.
very interesting.
ok try this on for size.
pretend the head is George W Bush’s:
now, what are your responses?
ok try this on for size.
pretend the head is George W Bush’s:
now, what are your responses?
TAKE. IT. DOWN.
And Jimmy… that’s a stretch and even if it were true that enough people treated him that way, it’s no excuse for your site to display something so sacrilegious.
Timmy:
I don’t know who blasted you, but if you think this is funny you do lack a good sense of humor.
ok try this on for size.
pretend the head is George W Bush’s:
now, what are your responses?
Don’t have to pretend; Mark Shea found just such a thing last year over at his blog, and my response to it is the same:
FEH!
Chris-2-4
you misunderstand. I do not find this funny and there are often other things that I don’t find funny and others do and then I get blasted about my lack of sense of humour.
I don’t want to blame anybody for this, but I did find this picture rather disturbing and inappropiate for this blog. *shudder*
Dennis,
You mean this?
Not a good look – I feel…….dirty.
Mind you, looking at Clinton’s picture makes me feel bad anytime, but not as bad as I feel now.
Take it off and bury it.
Publius or Dennis:
Okay, that picture of GWB with the other presidents may not be in great taste, but it’s not the same as replacing Christ’s head with someone else’s on a holy image.
Chris,
Agreed. While the the Bush painting may be interpreted as having messianic overtones (i.e., the resemblance to the Transfiguration, the cross directly behind W), it isn’t in the same league.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘saint’ is”
Apology accepted 🙂
Thank you for removing it and for your “mea culpa”. However, please don’t act like it is merely poor taste. You can talk about degrees all you want, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t technically sacrilege. If you disagree, then perhaps you could give us a definition of sacrilege that would not include replacing the head of Christ in a sacred image with a US President.
Well Michelle, you did the right thing taking it down because obviously many were offended by it.
But just to let you know you’re not alone, I thought it was humorous.
Is an image inherently sacred, particularly if it’s not actually a physical object? I thought sacrilige was mistreatment of, say, the Eucharist, or a blessed rosary, or a physical icon. It could be argued that it was offensive, but I don’t see how the Bill Clinton image was sacriligeous.
Dennis,
You mean this?
Not the one that I was thinking of, though I do remember that one from Mark’s blog. Perhaps I’m thinking of another blog for the picture that I saw.
In any event, I didn’t consider the pictures sacreligeous, just tastless. I didn’t mean to be disaproving towards Michelle or anyone else here.
Good thing I didn’t see it. Any picture of Bill Clinton makes my stomach turn.
I wish I could see the picture of George W.
I think that HE will be at Jesus’ right hand and deserves to be!
please everyone, give him the chance he needs to set this world on the right path in this new world order.
Michelle,
Thanks for taking that picture down, and don’t worry — I still love reading your posts. Sometimes there is a fine line between humorous and offensive, and different people draw that line in different places.
While I find the picture itself distasteful, I also found it humorous in a black way. I think some great captions could have been had, and that some people need thicker skin. It’s not like she made the bloody thing….
Meh.
For those out there that didn’t like it: lighten up. It wasn’t sacrilege, it wasn’t a sin. It was incredibly absurd, and because of that very absurdity, pretty doggone hilarious, in my humble opinion.
For the person who thinks that President Bush deserves to be at Jesus’ right hand (aptly named “farrightfan”), two things:
1) you’re telling me that of all the saints and devoted servants that have lived and are now in heaven, including John Paul, Thomas Aquinas, all the Apostles and martyrs, St. Augustine, etc., GWB tops them all? Forgive me if I’m not a tad dubious about that.
2)Read Matthew 20
“Is an image inherently sacred”
Any image of Jesus is inherently sacred. Not giving due respect to him by means of not giving due respect to an image of him would be sacrilege. It would be a sacrilege for example to draw a picture of Jesus onto some form of paper and then use it as toilet paper.
A special respect is due however to images that have been blessed or consecrated.
I did not see the picture that was posted so my comments above are only directed at the other commenter and are not meant to be a criticism of any sort of Michelle.
One more caption:
I am the God of Mercy. To get out of purgatory, you have to love and forgive this man and I will.
What Paul H said.