<p>"Students at Carnegie Mellon say its freedom of expression, but the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh calls it inappropriate and disrespectful.</p>
<p>At an annual art school parade, a female student dressed up as the pope, and was naked from the waist down while she passed out condoms." ...</p>
<p>Things that make you go, "Hmmm."</p>
<p>CMU</a> Parade Controversy Over Naked Woman, Dressed As Pope « CBS Pittsburgh</p>
<p>Just because it’s a “freedom of expression” doesn’t mean it’s not inappropriate and disrespectful. Her disagreement with the Catholic church on the subject of contraception has now become a discussion of her own lude and lacivious behavior. It may be a misdemeanor (much like the streakers of the 1970’s). I suppose it achieved her purpose (regional and national exposure), however, she may regret her public “exposure” when she goes job hunting.</p>
<p>If she’s an art major isn’t this exact kind of performance art what employers would be looking for?</p>
<p>“They say “CMU’s decision not to suspend this female student, who publicly ridiculed Catholics and violated the local ordinance on public nudity, while invoking sanctions against the frat boys for offensive behavior behind closed doors, is legally problematic and morally indefensible.””</p>
<p>did they just refer to sexual assault as “offensive behavior”? and then compare it to indecent exposure?</p>
<p>what the hell, lol.</p>
<p>or were they referring to something else that the “frat boys” did? i hope so.</p>
<p>@metroplex, “CMU recently suspended fraternity members for taking sexual pictures inside the frat and emailing them to other members.”</p>
<p>^ This is public humiliation which is 10,000x worse than indecent exposure. Suggesting that the two are in any way equal is cowardly, pathetic, and just plain disgusting.</p>
<p>I love how the Catholic Church thinks its brand logos deserve preferential treatment. Would Pepsi or the Steelers have demanded suspension if the student shaved the Pepsi or the Steelers logo onto herself? </p>
<p>Also, best quote in the article: ““I’m an atheist, I thought it was funny to be honest,” said student Daniel Kim.”</p>
<p>My guess is that if it were the Steelers or Pepsi logo they could sue her for a copyright infringement (you don’t get to use it unless you get permission and most likely pay for it). I’ve never considered the Cross a “brand” logo. No one has controlling interest over it.</p>
<p>Honestly, if she were making fun of the Jewish religion or Muslim religion, it would have been taken more offensively, in my opinion. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jewish and Muslim community would complain in that situation. So it makes it ok for Catholic Church to see it as inappropriate. However, I think CMU should deal with it privately… It was the Carnival weekend, pretty much the only time during the whole year when CMU allows kids to have fun and go crazy. It would be unfair to suspend the student right away, as there were no explicit rules that she was breaking. (if there were, only CFA students are aware of them) Soooo for those of you perspective students, don’t judge the university based on an action of one person, in case you were.</p>
<p>
The Christian cross is a logo in all but name for Catholicism, the Catholic Church’s invisible product. The Church doesn’t want their logo abused because they don’t want their product’s image to be damaged .</p>
<p>
Incorrect use of the term “controlling interest.” A “controlling interest” is an ownership stake in a corporation of >50% of outstanding shares or the majority of voting shares. Controlling interest has absolutely nothing to do with logos.</p>
<p>Furthermore, if this student had worn a Pepsi or Steelers logo, its extremely unlikely that she would have been sued for copyright infringement. She wasn’t using the logo to advertise or make a profit so any case against her would be weak.</p>
<p>While we are quibbling, she was only half-naked.</p>
<p>Jews and Muslims are marginalized groups in the US. Free speech is protected under the constitution, not hate crime.</p>
<p>I think comparing the church to a company is ridiculous. What she did was offensive and disrespectful to Catholics…I just don’t think the diocese’s response was appropriate or that anything the student did merits legal action. I mean I’m sure there are people that find it funny - but it’s just not necessary to mock someone’s faith for the sake of humor.</p>
<p>So you can mock someone’s taste in sports, beverages, music, etc. but criticizing their religion is taboo? That’s an archaic double-standard and I’m appalled that anyone supports it.</p>
<p>Also, the student would’ve been “offensive and disrespectful” to Steelers fans (or fans of any team) if she shaved the team’s logo onto herself. You’re saying that its perfectly fine to mock someone’s favorite sports team but completely unacceptable to mock their religion. Now that’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>“That’s an archaic double-standard and I’m appalled that anyone supports it.”</p>
<p>what? that statement is pure rhetoric. the comparison you’re making has no substance - obviously it’s a much more complex issue than that. religion constitutes to a set of closely held beliefs, and for many people their faith is very important and personal. i’m not religious at all myself, but at least i try to understand what that experience must be like for those who are.</p>
<p>i’m not saying the university should take action against the student or curtail her right to free speech. all i’m saying is that mocking someone’s faith is rude and disrespectful. many catholics are genuinely pious people that attempt to live their life by a moral code that i think theists and atheists alike should at least try and adhere to - to be kind, treat others as you would like to be treated, and to assist those who are less fortunate than yourself. and if you don’t, at least avoid mocking their lifestyle simply because you can’t relate to it. </p>
<p>criticism of a religion is fine. outright mockery (while legal and technically allowed) is borderline bigoted. if you truly can’t attempt to comprehend that mocking someone’s religion is rude, and are unable to find and discernible differences between having a favorite sport’s team and being religious…wow.</p>
<p>also</p>
<p>whoa</p>
<p>why am i having this discussion on CC looool</p>
<p>I have to agree with you metroplex. CMU is a private university and can choose to determine the standards of behavior it wishes to enforce. The act by the young woman was rude and disrespectful and there is no arguing that. She intended to be rude and disrespectful. The question becomes, should the Catholic Church expect the university to do anything about it. I would say no and most likely they truly don’t. I also, however, would not expect the Church to stay quiet about it either. Boorish behavior should be brought to light even if it is legal. I can can express disagreement of ones beliefs without being ugly about it.</p>
<p>What she did was certainly disrespectful. I wonder, based on the apparent message of what she did–maybe she doesn’t respect the Catholic Church? And perhaps one can figure out why, specifically, she doesn’t?</p>
<p>FateGoneAwry16: Pepsi controls the use of it’s logo, the same with the Steelers. The Catholic church does not control the use of the Cross. If they did I am sure the KKK would not be a group they would allow to use it. The true Catholic Cross has Christ on the crucifix (the closest thing to a “logo”) and I doubt the young woman was that artistic.</p>
<p>“the comparison you’re making has no substance” - It would if you had the intelligence to understand it. I made that comparison to illustrate that religion, like any preference, shouldn’t be exempt from criticism. If you could read properly, you’d see that I’m not equating one’s choice of religion to a favorite sports teams and that I’m only advocating for fairness. Btw, for someone who thinks “criticism of a religion is fine,” you get pretty angry when people criticize religion. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t condone the mockery of religion or the actions this woman took. Mocking religion is offensive, but so is mockery of anything that people care about. Catholics have a right to be angry about this event and I never said otherwise. I think suspension is far too onerous a punishment (as I said in my 1st comment) but some outrage is definitely justified. What I stated, however, is that religion should be criticized (not mocked) in the same way that other preferences are criticized. If you really didn’t get that… wow. You need better reading comprehension skills.</p>
<p>I come from a religious family and I’m fully aware of how important faith can be. In fact, one of my relatives says prayers for 5+ hours a day, despite the fact that she’s 80 years old. I have the utmost respect for spiritual people and I don’t see anything wrong with being religious. </p>
<p>What irritates me however, aside from your ignorant remarks metroplex, are blatant double-standards. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News pundits disparage atheists and agnostics every day. Many of my relatives openly state that atheists “have no morals” or are “ruining society.” By contrast, there aren’t any major TV or Radio pundits who are equally intolerant of Christians. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but being an atheist is an extremely personal choice (almost as personal as being religious). Most atheists come from religious households (source: “God is not Great”) and have to abandon the religious ideals they’ve been taught their whole lives. They face scrutiny from most of their friends and family and have to tirelessly defend their lack of belief.</p>
<p>If we can openly criticize people for their lack of religion, we should also be able to criticize people for being religious. Attacking the lack of faith shouldn’t be less controversial than attacking faith itself. And if you truly believe otherwise, you’re just making this archaic double-standard more effective. End rant.</p>
<p>Btw, thank you for turning this thread into a Youtube comment section.</p>
<p>why the ad hominem attack, lol? it seems we’re in agreement about most nearly everything.</p>
<p>“Mocking religion is offensive, but so is mockery of anything that people care about.”</p>
<p>“Most atheists come from religious households (source: “God is not Great”) and have to abandon the religious ideals they’ve been taught their whole lives. They face scrutiny from most of their friends and family and have to tirelessly defend their lack of belief.”</p>
<p>agreed. mocking atheists is offensive as well. i deal with this from my parents. i never said it was okay to mock anyone. i’m not entirely sure who you’re arguing with, because i never said any of those things. all i said was that mocking catholics was disrespectful. i don’t think think what the student did constituted to constructive criticism. it was mockery. </p>
<p>if you have a bone to pick with glenn beck or fox commentators, perhaps you should do that instead of writing a lengthy rant directed at me that doesn’t even pertain to anything i said. sorry, dude.</p>
<p>
While these aren’t appropriate statements for public discussion, I would like to point out that it isn’t mocking atheism. Different people say the same thing about various groups and concepts.</p>
<p>Ad hominem? You said that I think mockery of religion is acceptable and that I can’t distinguish between mockery and criticism. My ad hominem was a response to your ad hominem lol. Furthermore, all of your previous posts state that you don’t want religion criticized.</p>
<p>Also, I used Fox News as an example for my point. I have no quarrel with them and nothing I said suggests otherwise. If you don’t know what a rhetorical example is, I feel sorry for you dude.</p>