‘Jesus with erection’ ignites outrage

Posted in Uncategorized at 8:10 am by Steve

Hundreds of people were injured and the offices of a fringe university newspaper, the “Insurgent”, a publication at the University of Oregon, were burned as dissident Christians rioted over cartoons published in the newspaper. Several of the offending cartoons showed Jesus in an offensive manner. Cars were burned as rioters shouted “Death to Newspapers” and “Death to the South European Barn Swallow”. Reporters are not quite sure why the South European Barn Swallow was singled out, other than one rioter thought his cousin’s friend might have said that one may have recently worked at the “Insurgent” as a typesetter.
Oh wait, this didn’t actually happen…
I mean, yes, the “Insurgent”, a fringe newspaper at the University of Oregon, did print some very offensive cartoons of Jesus, in an convoluted attempt to draw some kind of connection between the Danish cartoons of mohammed and the freedom to print and say whatever they were trying to print and say. But as for the rioting Christians? The only place that happened was in my imagination.
Here’s the article:

A Catholic activist organization has written to Oregon’s governor and state lawmakers to protest a University of Oregon student newspaper for having published cartoons showing Jesus Christ naked and with an erection.
In its March edition, the Insurgent, an “alternative” student paper on the Eugene, Ore., campus printed 12 hand-drawn cartoons of Jesus as a response to rival paper the Commentator having published the controversial cartoons of Muhammad originally published in Europe that sparked Muslim riots worldwide. The Insurgent claimed it published the drawings to “provoke dialogue.”
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said the university’s president, Dave Frohnmayer, had been unresponsive to complaints about the drawings, so he had written to the governor, every state legislators and the chancellor of the Oregon University System, among others.
“The March edition of the Insurgent … was one of the most obscene assaults on Christianity I have ever seen,” Donohue said in a statement. “To make sure that the persons I wrote to understand how vile this attack was, I sent a photocopy of the two most offensive graphics: one was a depiction of a naked Jesus on the cross with an erection; the other, titled ‘Resurrection,’ showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections.”
Donohue also says there were other depictions of Jesus on the cross that were “so gratuitously offensive that only the most depraved would defend them.” He also noted the paper published two commentaries attacking Catholicism.
“That all of this appeared in a student newspaper, during Lent, on the campus of a state institution, makes one wonder what is going on at the University of Oregon,” added Donohue.
While not describing the more sexual drawings, the main student newspaper at the university, the Oregon Daily Emerald, also criticized the Insurgent.
“The Insurgent editorial indicates a desire to show Americans why the original cartoons were so offensive to the Muslim world,” wrote the editor of the Emerald. “According to the editorial, ‘What is “not a big deal” in the US (sic) is apparently a humongous big deal to others. Why should we assume it would not be?’
“However, printing home-grown cartoons depicting Jesus on a cross/pogo stick or Jesus on a cross/hangliding apparatus are not inflammatory in the same manner as the anti-Islam cartoons, and therefore fail to produce the intended empathy from Christians to Muslims.”
Added the paper: “Unlike the Danish cartoons, the Insurgent drawings seem intended to simply incite controversy for controversy’s sake rather than making specific social commentaries.”
A spokesman for Frohnmayer contacted WorldNetDaily after press time to say that the university president had posted a statement regarding the controversy surrounding the cartoons:
“I share your concern about the offensive nature of the content contained within the publication.
“I understand why it may seem as if the University should have prevented publication or should take some action against those responsible for the publication. The Student Insurgent is not owned, controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. Therefore, the University cannot exercise editorial control over its content.
“The best response to offensive speech often is more speech. … I am strongly opposed to speech that makes individuals feel that they or their beliefs are unwelcome or belittled, and I can assure you I will use all permissible means to respond to publications such as the recent Insurgent.”


  1. beth said,

    April 27, 2006 at 10:32 am

    I saw a few of the pictures you are speaking of on another website and I have to say that I dont believe I have ever been so – for lack of stronger words – completely offended and disgusted. I dont think there are any words to describe the audacity of these idiotic people who invented this filth in their sick minds! There have been very few times in my life (just ask my husband) that I have been speechless – seeing those pictures was one of those rare times. I read that someone said those pics were designed to spark conversation – I daresay the most memorable conversation about them will be between the “artist” and Jesus on Judgement Day.

  2. Jesus_is_Lord said,

    April 27, 2006 at 10:46 am

    Hi Beth!
    It’s the same thing all the time. Art and publications degrading Jesus are all the rage, but publish something about islam and the world quakes in it’s boots.
    I take a lot of comfort in knowing that my God is big enough to stand up for Himself, but it does make me upset when these people do this sort of thing just to “spark conversation”.
    I guess though, we might want to thank the publishers of the “Insurgent”. They have actually highlighted a very good point.
    That point is: How much better and more civilized Christians act, in light of an offense to our religion, then muslims do when someone “insults” theirs.

  3. GaryDavisonJr. said,

    April 27, 2006 at 3:06 pm


    This article by John Piper put this whole thing in perspective for me, he writes:

    “If Christ had not been insulted, there would be no salvation. This was his saving work: to be insulted and die to rescue sinners from the wrath of God. Already in the Psalms the path of mockery was promised: “All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads” (Psalm 22:7). “He was despised and rejected by men . . . as one from whom men hide their faces . . . and we esteemed him not” (Isaiah 53:3). When it actually happened it was worse than expected. “They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. . . . And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ And they spit on him” (Matthew 27:28-30). His response to all this was patient endurance. This was the work he came to do. “Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7)…That’s the most basic difference between Christ and Muhammad and between a Muslim and a follower of Christ. For Christ, enduring the mockery of the cross was the essence of his mission.

    and lastly:

    It means that a religion with no insulted Savior will not endure insults to win the scoffers. It means that this religion is destined to bear the impossible load of upholding the honor of one who did not die and rise again to make that possible. It means that Jesus Christ is still the only hope of peace with God and peace with man. And it means that his followers must be willing to “share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Philippians 3:10).”

    Amen & Amen

  4. Jesus_is_Lord said,

    April 28, 2006 at 8:49 am

    AMEN!! Very well said!

Leave a Comment