[Foundation-l] Boycott in ace at wiki

[Fred Bauder]

> Excirial wrote:
>> *First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant.*
>> As already mentioned in a previous response: are there any authentic
>> images
>> which display any god or prophet?
>>
>
> Do they not have traditional images that go back millennia? If you
> depicted images of Shiva as Yoda you'd get a whole load of grief from
> Hindus, and the Christians were none too pleased about the image of
> christ being fucked by a Roman Centurian (see Whitehouse v Lemon).
>
> Oh and I'll just mention in passing that wikimedia doesn't have nearly
> enough photos of 'Baby Jesus Butt Plugs', nor are there anywhere near
> enough drawings of Western politicians engaging in bestiality. I'm sure
> that there are oodles of those out there, I know an artist friend of
> mine draw a number of Ronald Reagun sucking a horses dick and shitting
> nuclear missiles. Perhaps I'll take some scans and add them to:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Yes, indeed.

What is wrong with using photographs of Baby Jesus Butt Plugs to
illustrate the article on Jesus? Answer that question and you'll know why
offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're
saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of
Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real
harm would be done. Or would there?

Fred Bauder